MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054044869 · doi:10.4000/amerika.2511

De l’exil à l’errance, la diversité des sujets migrants

2011· article· fr· W2054044869 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marion Sauvaire

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerika · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir de récits d’écrivains caribéens installés au Québec, l’article présente trois figures de migrants correspondant à différentes façons d’envisager l’expérience du déplacement: l’exil, la migrance et l’errance. L’ancrage territorial propre à l’exil est questionné par une forme plus introspective de « migrance », qui interroge autant les contradictions internes du pays d’accueil que la nostalgie du pays perdu. L’épreuve du retour désenchanté au pays natal creuse la distance entre le pays réel et le pays rêvé, cristallisé par la mémoire de la diaspora. En juxtaposant plusieurs espaces en un même lieu, la poétique de l’errance explore les interstices entre le pays réel et le pays rêvé, l’ici et l’ailleurs, le passé et le devenir. L’écrivain migrant crée un espace intermédiaire : le pays intérieur. Ce dernier est soustrait à la réalité des frontières territoriales et élargi vers des itinéraires transaméricains. L’errance refuse ainsi l’alternative entre l’assimilation à l’autre et l’enfermement dans une identité-racine. Les littératures migrantes illustrent comment se recomposent la subjectivité et la socialité contemporaines à partir de la diversité des appartenances, de la plasticité des frontières, et de l’hétérogénéité des postures énonciatives.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerikaSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207