Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the feature films of Bernard Émond as being a sustained critique of Québec's Quiet Revolution. It posits that Émond displays strong nationalist tendencies as well as leftist political commitments, which might indicate that he is like many Québec filmmakers of his generation. But Émond is strongly influenced by a certain kind of conservatism, of the sort that has recently been enunciated by the controversial Québec historian Éric Bedard. In many ways Émond, like Bédard, is a “Red Tory,” being very close ideologically to the English-Canadian philosopher George Grant. Ideologically speaking, though, Émond is also very close to a number of important European filmmakers, such as Laurent Cantet, Ermanno Olmi or Kryzstof Kiselowski. Overall, his vision of Québec is of a place that is defined by an intense spiritual malaise, with a culture that is being made weaker by the forces of a capitalist-led globalization. The article focuses on all of the feature films that Émond has made up to 2012, and pays particular attention to his trilogy on the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity: La Neuvaine (The Novena, 2005), Contre toute espérance (Summit Circle, 2007) and La Donation (The Legacy, 2009). Because it was released so close to the press time of this article, Émond's most recent film, Tout ce que tu possédes (2012) is not considered here.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".