MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014986150 · doi:10.7202/007039ar

La motivation des styles chez Marguerite Duras : cris et silence dans Moderato cantabile et La douleur

2003· article· fr· W2014986150 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes françaises · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilenceHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les termes « cri » et « silence » apparaissent de façon frappante à la fois dans les romans de Marguerite Duras et dans ses essais sur l’écriture. À la lumière d’autres approches du silence dans les oeuvres littéraires, cet article explique pourquoi ces termes métaphoriques sont valorisés par le discours critique durassien. Leur présence envahissante dans l’anecdote romanesque ne suffit pas à rendre compte de leur application fréquente au style et à l’acte d’écriture par Duras et ses critiques. Leur promotion contribue positivement à l’esthétique du roman moderne et à la défense d’une écriture autre. En effet, le silence et le cri revalorisent des pôles de la parole spontanée qui échappent à la logique écrite des belles-lettres et à l’enquête rhétorique traditionnelle. Vus comme des figures d’une nouvelle espèce, le cri et le silence permettent de réunir l’analyse du contenu et la stylistique dans une mise en valeur des formes qui situe la spécificité de Duras dans la mouvance du roman moderne.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · 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