MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1896514976 · doi:10.21992/t9v336

Carrière, Marie. Médée protéiforme. Ottawa : Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2012.

2014· article· fr· W1896514976 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Adrien Guyot

Bibliographic record

VenueTranscUlturAl A Journal of Translation and Cultural Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Médée, figure féminine incontournable de la mythologie grecque, mère coupable de fratricide et d’infanticide, a longtemps fasciné lecteurs, écrivains et chercheurs. Si le personnage de Médée constitue par son acte un être unique dans la mythologie, force est de constater que l’infanticide est un sujet prisé de la littérature féminine actuelle. Comparatiste de formation, Marie Carrière, professeure de littérature à l’Université de l’Alberta où elle dirige également le Centre de littérature canadienne (CLC), propose à ce titre de se pencher sur huit œuvres : La Médée d’Euripide (1986) de Marie Cardinal, Flowers & No More Medea (1994) de Deborah Porter, Médée, Récits de femmes et autres histoires (1986) de Franca Ramee et Dario Fo, The Hungry Woman : A Mexican Medea (2001) de Cherrie Moraga, New Medea (1974) de Monique Bosco, Médée : voix (2004) de Christa Wolf, Petroleum (2004) de Bessora et Le livre d’Emma (2002) de Marie-Célie Agnant). Ces œuvres, aussi différentes soient-elles par leur contexte, revisitent, à travers des procédés d’écriture et de réécriture variés, le mythe de Médée (l’infanticide apparaissant comme source de différend) et façonnent de manière ou d’autre, le discours féministe actuel.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.024

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranscUlturAl A Journal of Translation and Cultural StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207