Jake, Joshua et Barney, intellectuels et transfuges : le paradoxal héroïsme des personnages de Mordecai Richler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ses recueils d’essais, Mordecai Richler dénonce de manière souvent virulente l’embrigadement forcé de l’écrivain, les protectionnismes culturels et l’enthousiasme parfois trompeur des universitaires en mal de classiques. Cet article porte plus précisément sur les romans St. Urbain’s Horseman (1971), Joshua Then and Now (1980) et Barney’s Version (1997), dans lesquels les héros richleriens — Jake, Joshua et Barney — adoptent à l’égard des institutions culturelles une attitude similaire à celle de Richler l’essayiste. Il s’agira pour l’essentiel d’esquisser les portraits de ces singuliers justiciers qui prétendent révéler les hypocrisies des sociétés trop policées, mais qui oublient parfois de considérer leurs propres démissions.AbstractIn his collections of essays, Mordecai Richler denounces sometimes virulently the inevitable engagement of the writer, the cultural protectionisms and the enthusiasm of the scholars looking for classics. Inspired by Richler’s essays on the writer’s duties, this paper will be devoted to three novels — St. Urbain’s Horseman (1971), Joshua Then and Now (1980) and Barney’s Version (1997) — and to the paradoxical heroism of their main characters. Indeed, they do condemn the hypocrisies of their society and forget at the same time their own resignation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".