MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048435824 · doi:10.1353/nef.2012.0031

Pratiques de l’écriture frontalière chez quelques écrivains migrants québécois

2012· article· fr· W2048435824 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stéphanie Bellemare-Page

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles études francophones/Nouvelles etudes francophones · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article propose, d’une part, une analyse de l’écriture frontalière/du border writing (Hicks 1991) dans l’œuvre de quelques écrivains migrants du Québec dont Dany Laferrière, Wajdi Mouawad, Abla Farhoud, Ying Chen, Régine Robin, Marco Micone et Naïm Kattan. Il s’agit d’analyser la frontière non pas sur le plan thématique, mais en tant que pratique d’écriture, c’est-à-dire de montrer comment les écrivains migrants cherchent constamment dans leurs œuvres à franchir et à repousser les frontières, quelles qu’elles soient. L’écriture frontalière est, d’autre part, observée du point de vue de ses effets de lecture, puisqu’elle incite le lecteur à développer une vision multidimensionnelle du texte et contribue à brouiller ses repères géographiques, linguistiques, culturels, etc. L’article se conclut par l’hypothèse selon laquelle le décentrement culturel et identitaire vécu par les écrivains migrants et les pressions qu’ils subissent de la part de l’institution littéraire les conduit à un recentrement sur la parole poétique.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles études francophones/Nouvelles etudes francophonesSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207