MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061239933 · doi:10.7202/013673ar

Écrire la voyance.

2006· article· fr· W2061239933 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maxime Prévost

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiterary and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s’intéresse à la représentation que fait Honoré de Balzac de Dante Alighieri dans sa nouvelle Les proscrits (1831). Balzac donne vie au plus grand poète de l’époque médiévale pour rappeler à ses lecteurs que l’écrivain de génie tient nécessairement du voyant. Le Poète véritable serait celui dont la faculté de seconde vue lève le voile, ne serait-ce que partiellement, sur les mystères métaphysiques de la création. On suggère en conclusion que, par le choix du titre général de Comédie humaine, Balzac se réclame implicitement de l’autorité de Dante pour écrire une oeuvre visionnaire et mystique.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicLiterary and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207