MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049674443 · doi:10.7202/1007583ar

Le cadavre dans la littérature fantastique

2012· article· fr· W2049674443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isabelle Percebois

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au XIX e siècle, la littérature fantastique exploite le thème de la mort et devient une véritable littérature du cadavre. Dans des oeuvres telles que Frankenstein de Mary Shelley ou Le Rêve du docteur Mišić de K.S. Gjalski, les corps errent entre la vie et la mort et s’animent sous la plume des écrivains. Ces récits substituent le cadavre au traditionnel revenant et délaissent le surnaturel pour puiser l’horreur dans la réalité : le corps inerte y apparaît comme un objet de recherches scientifiques et fait du cimetière l’antichambre du laboratoire. À travers l’histoire du docteur Frankenstein et du docteur Mišić, le lecteur découvre la face sombre d’un siècle scientiste où la dépouille, devenue simple marchandise, se négocie et s’expose dans les salles de dissections. Les amphithéâtres des universités font ainsi de la mort un spectacle où les savants se prennent pour Dieu ; mais en défiant l’interdit et en brisant le tabou entourant le cadavre pour dévoiler les secrets de la nature, les héros fantastiques encourent un châtiment mortel.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.007

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontièresSame topicDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningFrench-language works237,207