MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033120729 · doi:10.3917/mult.029.0023

“Draupadi” avant-propos de la traductrice

2007· article· fr· W2033120729 on OpenAlexaff
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Bibliographic record

VenueMultitudes · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Draupadi, protagoniste de la nouvelle de Mahasweta Devi publiée ici dans sa version anglaise, est une femme assujettie, mais capable de se rebeller, de résister jusqu’à la mort. Elle ne cherche pas la compassion. Son corps nu et mourant devant l’ennemi, elle résiste, son dernier acte est un acte de résistance dans lequel elle défie son ennemi de la (ren)contrer : pour la première fois, son ennemi, Senanayak, a peur, peur de faire face à un « objectif désarmé ». Mais qui est Senanayak ? Dans la nouvelle, Senanyak est un officier de l’armée du gouvernement du Bengale qui commande l’arrestation et l’humiliation de Draupadi, la femme qui a pris la tête de la révolte tribale au moment des luttes des Naxalites pour la réforme agraire, dans les années 1960. Mais dans sa préface à la nouvelle, Gayatri Spivak suggère de rapprocher la figure de Senanayak de celle de l’intellectuel du Premier-monde, coproducteur malgré lui des régimes d’exploitation et de domination dans le Tiers-monde. Son point de vue sur l’engagement des féministes occidentales est alors clair : « nous ne serons pas capables de parler aux femmes de là-bas si nous dépendons entièrement des conférences et des anthologies d’informateurs formés à l’Ouest ».

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)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultitudesSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207