MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076428039 · doi:10.7202/007569ar

Sous « la longue logique de l’histoire » : Les métaphores temporalisées

2004· article· fr· W2076428039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucie Bourassa

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présente étude porte sur un texte de Marc Cholodenko, Bela Jai, qui est une fable sur le temps, l’histoire et la narration. Mettant en scène un personnage d’écrivain, Gaspadin Pissatiel, qui, d’un côté, est le « maître de la longue logique de l’histoire » et abat « les questions au fur que le temps avance irrésistiblement » et, de l’autre, souhaite composer « une histoire sans narration », ce « roman » semble à la fois réitérer et contester l’axiome de Ricoeur selon lequel « le récit est le gardien du temps ». Pour l’analyser, nous prendrons comme point de départ les conclusions de Temps et récit, dans lesquelles Ricoeur, constatant les limites de l’intrigue face au mystère de la temporalité, fait l’hypothèse que d’autres aspects du discours viennent relayer la narration lorsque celle-ci ne peut plus dire le temps : il songe alors à des « échanges » entre refiguration narrative et redescription lyrique (métaphore, louange et plainte). C’est bien à la faveur de tels échanges que Bela Jai propose sa réplique particulière aux énigmes du temps : cependant, les échanges n’impliquent pas seulement le dispositif narratif et les métaphores, mais également d’autres modes de signification que Ricoeur n’aborde pas, notamment le rythme.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

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 studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207