MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W184111307 · doi:10.26522/vp.v9i1.579

Ecrire à la suite de : Andrée Lacelle, Andrée Christensen et Jacques Flamand, Paul Savoie et Dyane Léger

2012· article· fr· W184111307 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Catherine Parayre

Bibliographic record

VenueVoix Plurielles · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

« Ecrire à la suite de » est un procédé d’écriture courant dans la littérature, qu’il s’agisse de mettre en relief l’intertextualité de l’œuvre (par exemple, en incluant des citations), de s’adonner à un travail basé sur l’intermédialité (par exemple, dans un texte rédigé à partir de photographies) ou encore d’écrire à quatre mains, lorsqu’un des deux auteurs ajoute son texte à celui du partenaire d’écriture. Ne faisant pas exception, les littératures francophones du Canada pratiquent tout aussi fréquemment cette écriture de l’après. Le présent article en examinera quelques exemples dans des œuvres de nature introspective : La lumière et l’heure : poèmes et carnets (2004) d’Andrée Lacelle, avec des tableaux de Réjine Halimi ; Lithochronos ou le premier vol de la pierre (1999) d’Andrée Christensen et Jacques Flamand, avec des photographies de Christensen ; et L’incendiaire (2008) de Paul Savoie et Dyane Léger. L’analyse montrera que l’écriture « à la suite de », aussi variées qu’en soient les manifestations, non seulement met en évidence la présence de l’auteur dans ces textes, mais a aussi pour résultat, dans ces œuvres méditatives, de dédramatiser et d’amenuiser l’intensité de la réflexion existentielle.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVoix PluriellesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207