MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045018788 · doi:10.3138/ijcs.47.123

La maison de retraite comme espace hétérotopique dans les romans canadiens : <i>Exit Lines</i> de Joan Barfoot, <i>Et dansent les hirondelles</i> de Marguerite-A. Primeau et <i>Les vieux ne courent pas les rues</i> de Jean-Pierre Boucher

2013· article· en· W2045018788 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Estelle Dansereau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeSpace (punctuation)PortraitArtHumanitiesSociologyIdentity (music)Art historyAestheticsLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The retirement home, a heterotopic space removed from the centre of fast-paced twenty-first century urban life, is increasingly becoming a site of revolt and transformation in Canadian fiction. Constructed principally as feminine spaces, these sites nevertheless offer the possibility of featuring a kaleidoscope of ways to age and create a microcosm where small acts of delirious rebellions may occur. These acts become fodder for writers who nevertheless acknowledge the undeniable challenges linked to aging in our era of agism. Three Canadian novelists have set their novels in just such a space: Joan Barfoot in Exit Lines (2008) offers an irreverent portrait of uprooted seniors intent on defining their “last identity,” Marguerite-A. Primeau in her still unpublished Et dansent les hirondelles renders an equally caustic, soberly ironic look at the secret, segregated world of the retirement homes, and Jean-Pierre Boucher in Les vieux ne courent pas les rues (2001) satirizes the “compassionate care” provided in nursing homes where seniors are segregated and managed but seldom loved. In this paper, I consider, through the lens of Michel Foucault’s concept of “heterotopic spaces” and empirical research on seniors’ habitats, the magical way novelists are able to transform what is often seen as a desperate situation for seniors into readable, engaging, and sometimes subversive narratives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0370.046
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207