MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001636294 · doi:10.7202/1013875ar

Un valentin au grand Maurice — Léon Bloy, Olivar Asselin et Robert LaPalme : essai sur un problème de transfert culturel dans l’histoire de la caricature au Québec

2013· article· fr· W2001636294 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dominic Hardy

Bibliographic record

VenueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelle · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En partant d’une caricature remarquablement violente de Maurice Duplessis, dessinée par Robert LaPalme et publiée dans l’hebdomadaire Vrai en février 1958, la présente étude fait état de certains défis que posent l’analyse et l’interprétation de l’image satirique dans l’histoire et, plus généralement, dans l’histoire de la culture littéraire et artistique au Québec. Les recherches sur la carrière de LaPalme montrent l’importance qu’il faut accorder à son milieu intellectuel et idéologique, de par son association avec quelques-uns des plus influents journalistes-éditeurs de son temps. Or une figure surprenante émerge de ces recherches : celle de l’écrivain français Léon Bloy. Les traces de son influence semblent nombreuses mais demeurent difficiles à dégager. Nous croyons pourtant qu’il s’agit bel et bien d’un cas de transfert culturel qui s’opère depuis la littérature polémique bloyenne du tournant du xxe siècle vers cette autre littérature polémique, souvent illustrée, qui est pratiquée au Québec dans les années 1930-1950 par les Olivar Asselin, Claude-Henri Grignon, André Laurendeau et, bien entendu, Robert LaPalme.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
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 designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelleSame topicLiterature and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207