MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033033014 · doi:10.7202/1024940ar

Zombie, vous avez dit zombie ? Quand l’apocalypse zombie s’empare du roman

2014· article· fr· W2033033014 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Patrick Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZombieArtHumanitiesArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article examine la manière dont les genres littéraires narratifs (roman et nouvelle) se sont approprié la figure du zombie mythifiée au cinéma par George A. Romero. Une première partie situe la figure littéraire du zombie par rapport à ses modèles cinématographique (Romero) et bédéistique (Kirkman). Une seconde partie identifie cinq catégories de récits représentatives de cette appropriation littéraire : les anthologies de nouvelles de zombies, les romans de genre zombie, les zomédies et les pots-pourris, les fictions zombies hors du monde anglophone et les spéculations zombies littérairement élaborées.

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)0.001
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontièresSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207