MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1938027545 · doi:10.7202/1023760ar

Douze cent mille de Luc Durtain : un roman populiste avant la lettre ?

2014· article· fr· W1938027545 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexis Buffet

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtBourgeoisiePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1922, Luc Durtain publie son premier roman commencé dans les tranchées : Douze cent mille. Connu jusque-là comme poète, familier de l’Abbaye de Créteil et unanimiste, il appartient à cette « génération nouvelle » groupée autour de Jules Romains qui cherche à contrer les divagations du symbolisme en renouant avec la description du réel et du peuple. Parenté thématique qui justifie son annexion au mouvement populiste en compagnie de ses amis Romains et Duhamel (ils siégeront tous les trois comme membres du jury du Prix du roman populiste). Fable sociale particulièrement dense, Douze cent mille se donne pour mission de représenter cette « nécessité d’après-guerre » : « gagner sa vie ». Se posant contre les excès d’analyse du roman bourgeois, le roman de Durtain s’avère moins une description minutieuse du quotidien des classes laborieuses qu’une violente satire de la bourgeoisie oisive et du snobisme à travers les tribulations de Bongrand, picaro moderne et héros positif. Se refusant à une littérature de parti, sans pour autant dissimuler sa sympathie pour la cause socialiste, faisant le lien entre société d’argent et société guerrière, Douze cent mille illustre par anticipation la doctrine populiste et en souligne d’ores et déjà et comme malgré lui toutes les apories.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207