La création de Moncton comme « capitale culturelle » dans l’oeuvre de Gérald Leblanc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un des legs important de l’oeuvre de Gérald Leblanc est d’avoir créé le mythe très improbable de Moncton comme capitale culturelle de l’Acadie. Il y parvient en utilisant des stratégies éprouvées ailleurs, comme l’intégration à son oeuvre d’un récit sur Moncton comme centre fébrile de création artistique et la mise en scène des oppositions parallèles tradition/modernité et ruralité/urbanité. Les handicaps de Moncton à une vocation culturelle en langue française deviennent pour Leblanc des stimulants qui relancent son écriture. La construction symbolique de Leblanc autour de Moncton s’avère très efficace dans le cercle des artistes acadiens et de leur public qui adhèrent à la croyance au mythe et en font une réalité. Au delà de l’Acadie, le pouvoir du mythe est plus aléatoire et si certains y adhèrent, d’autres soulignent le décalage entre le Moncton rêvé par Leblanc et la réalité.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".