MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994778506 · doi:10.7202/1005656ar

« Tous les livres du monde, excepté un » : L’influence d’un livre (1837), roman de la lecture

2011· article· fr· W1994778506 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claude La Charité

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes françaises · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose de relire L’influence d’un livre (1837) de Philippe Aubert de Gaspé fils en tant que roman de la lecture qui problématise le rapport à l’écrit de la culture québécoise naissante. Tout le roman est en effet sous-tendu par deux pratiques de lecture concurrentes : la lecture intensive et la lecture extensive. Le protagoniste Charles Amand est le représentant par excellence de la lecture intensive, dévoyée, puisqu’il lit sans cesse Le Petit Albert. M. B***, prototype de l’homme des Lumières, est, quant à lui, l’incarnation de la lecture extensive, puisqu’il possède « tous les livres du monde, excepté un », allusion transparente à son adhésion à la libre-pensée qui n’a que faire de la Bible. Le futur gendre du protagoniste, Saint-Céran, est, lui, un lecteur mixte qui permettra à l’alchimiste raté de s’émanciper de la lecture servile et littérale de son grimoire grâce aux cadeaux qu’il lui offre à l’occasion de son mariage avec sa fille : le Dictionnaire des merveilles de la nature et une vingtaine de manuels des différents arts et métiers. Or, c’est dans ce don que réside l’explication de la conversion de Charles Amand à la lecture critique.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes françaisesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207