MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1914060301 · doi:10.18192/analyses.v1i1.436

Jake, Joshua et Barney, intellectuels et transfuges : le paradoxal héroïsme des personnages de Mordecai Richler

2006· article· fr· W1914060301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martine-Emmanuelle Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoise · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoiseSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207