MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078139889 · doi:10.7202/044213ar

Les prix littéraires pour la jeunesse, entre médiation et médiatisation

2010· article· fr· W2078139889 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMémoires du livre · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicDiverse Academia and Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La prolifération des prix littéraires affecte autant la littérature que le secteur de la jeunesse. Et ce, pour des raisons différentes. Dans le premier cas, il semble que la création de nouveaux prix soit une réponse aux crises récurrentes qui frappent cette institution vieille de plus d’un siècle. En revanche, les prix pour la jeunesse prolifèrent sans qu’on ne constate à leur propos de polémique. Loin de la médiatisation exacerbée qui touche des prix littéraires corrompus aux modes de sélection arbitraires et commerciaux, les prix pour la jeunesse, jouissant d’une faible notoriété, mènent un travail de médiation approfondi qui apporte une contribution efficace à la découverte de la littérature. Ils privilégient la phase de lecture, de débat et de confrontation des points de vue, favorisent une proximité avec les auteurs et valent donc bien plus par les processus qu’ils mettent en oeuvre que par l’affichage de leurs palmarès.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.302 · 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