MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1874389450

Mythes et (ré-re)création littéraire dans les Romans pour adolescents de Robert Soulières

2009· article· fr· W1874389450 on OpenAlexaff
Santé A. Viselli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Children's Literature / Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesse · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au lieu d'un resume, voici un bref extrait de cet article: Cette analyse portera sur les romans pour adolescents de Robert Soulieres, notamment sur le Visiteur du soir (1980), Un Ete sur le Richelieu (1982) et Casse-tete chinois (1985), les trois publies dans la Collection conquetes, dirigee par le meme Soulieres aux editions Pierre Tisseyre. Depuis 1985, l’ecrivain a publie une trentaine d’ouvrages. Pour des raisons fonctionnelles, nous accorderons une attention particuliere a Un Ete sur le Richelieu tout en faisant reference dans les limites du possible aux autres deux romans mentionnes. Suivant une methode plutot litteraire, l’analyse textuelle du roman nous permettra d’apprecier la valeur des mythes, tout en soulignant le cote recreatif et pedagogique du discours de Soulieres: nous serons particulierement sensible a l’aspect re-createur d’un univers fictionnel autre, mais conforme a la perception qu’en ont les lecteurs adolescents de connivence avec les jeunes protagonistes des aventures. Nous illustrerons enfin l’aspect recreatif, voire ludique, des textes a partir d’une serie de lieux communs langagiers presents dans les trois romans et qui semblent le mieux traduire ou evoquer l’univers d’attente des lecteurs entre dix et quatorze ans.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Children's Literature / Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesse→Same topicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis→French-language works237,207→