MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017131982 · doi:10.1093/fs/knt109

Correspondance (1893–1934) <i> <i> A <scp>ndré</scp> G <scp>ide</scp> –P <scp>aul</scp> F <scp>ort</scp> </i> : Correspondance (1893–1934) </i> . Édition établie, présentée et annotée par A <scp>kio</scp> Y <scp>oshii</scp> . (Gide/Textes, 20). Tupin-et-Semons: Centre d'études gidiennes, 2012. 89 pp.

2013· article· fr· W2017131982 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Geary Keohane

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGratitudeHonourDisappointmentAdmirationBanquetMeaning (existential)LiteratureArtPoetryHistoryArt historyPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume brings together all the known letters exchanged between André Gide and Paul Fort, forty-three in total, written between 1893 and 1934. Akio Yoshii deftly guides the reader through what is, at times, a scant (though nonetheless affectionate) correspondence. Yoshii provides a level of detail that not only firmly contextualizes each letter, but also accounts for the often lengthy gaps in communication between the writers. This involves the inclusion of a number of missives sent by intermediary figures (such as Robert Fort), which elucidate certain exchanges between Gide and Fort, as well as useful references to other published and unpublished correspondences. The literary journal founded by Paul Fort, Vers et prose, was well established by the time the Nouvelle Revue française began publication. The interactions between Gide and Fort often focus on either one or both of these journals, meaning that many of their exchanges tread a line between fond admiration and literary transaction. Indeed, the uncovering of the complex relationship between the two, not only as acquaintances in the literary world, but as writers operating in key editorial roles, is one of the volume's strong points. A notable 1911 exchange sees Gide air his disappointment on being excluded from a list of sponsors circulated before a celebratory banquet in honour of Fort; this unfortunate administrative error elicited much hand-wringing on the part of the greatly embarrassed poet. Fort, in fact, was always keen to impart his gratitude to Gide for his support, collaboration, and encouragement; nowhere is this shown more clearly than in a particularly moving letter from 1914, in which Fort (elected ‘Prince des poètes’ in 1912) also makes the case for poetry in a time of war. Gide's opinion of Fort's work was less favourable by the interwar period, and their correspondence, fizzling out as it does, is a poignant testament to a fading friendship. A number of private sales over the years have seen several of Gide's letters to Fort dispersed, often irretrievably; in such instances, Yoshii is forced to resort to the relevant sales catalogue entry to ensure as seamless a transition as possible from one letter to the next. This is an unfortunate but unavoidable challenge faced by scholars working on the correspondence of those writers, Gide included, whose fame and seniority as major literary figures had, in earlier times, secured a wide private market for their letters. Yoshii's scholarship, especially in surmounting the various obstacles that the incomplete Gide–Fort correspondence presents, constitutes a valuable addition to Gide's extensive correspondence already in print, and will be of particular interest to those focusing on his early works. As much as it reveals Fort's engagement with one of his most illustrious contributors, the volume also gives us remarkable insight into this under-esteemed poet, highlighting his unwavering appreciation of the power of lyrical inspiration, and the ways in which this outlook informs his editorial role.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.007

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicLiterature and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207