MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075306242

Figures du berger chez J.-M.G. Le Clézio et A. Dhôtel

2005· article· fr· W2075306242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruno Tritsmans

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles études francophones/Nouvelles etudes francophones · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCaribbean and African Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le berger est traditionnellement lie au religieux, et l?on a pu dire, dans ce sens, qu?il est ?reparateur de continuite? (Christian Morzewski). Cette continuite se manifeste, entre autres, par un savoir astral. ?Les Bergers? et Desert de Le Clezio reprennent manifestement ce topos mythique, mais en presentent en meme temps une version ?brisee?: le ciel etoile n?offre guere de stabilite, mais se fragmente et se fait miroir de la violence des hommes. Par ailleurs, au berger se substituent les figures de l?artisan-pecheur (Naman) et du gitan-voleur (Radics), qu?on peut lire comme des doubles affaiblis, voire degrades. Chez Dhotel, le berger est d?emblee un personnage marginalise, coupe de tout savoir mythique, et reduit a constater des coincidences, des incidents. Aussi se caracterise-t-il par sa legerete, son jeu. Le Clezio et Dhotel semblent ainsi explorer deux poetiques contrastees du mythe, nostalgique et ludique. Le Clezio ?proche en cela d?un Claude Levi-Strauss ? voit/ecrit le mythe comme un grand recit perdu, alors que Dhotel semble plus proche de la metis grecque, de l??intelligence souple? qui releve du ?savoir-faire de l?artisan,? voire de la duplicite du trickster.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles études francophones/Nouvelles etudes francophonesSame topicCaribbean and African Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207