MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086256019 · doi:10.1093/fs/knm192

The Growth of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu’: A Chronological Examination of Proust's Manuscripts from 1909 to 1914 The Growth of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu’: A Chronological Examination of Proust's Manuscripts from 1909 to 1914. By A <scp>nthony</scp> R. P <scp>ugh</scp> . University of Toronto Press, 2004. 2 vols. 825 pp.

2007· article· en· W2086256019 on OpenAlex
Richard Bales

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueFrench Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipCriticismInterpretation (philosophy)Magnum opusFeelingOrder (exchange)HistoryLiteratureArtPhilosophyLinguisticsEpistemologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sadly, Anthony Pugh died before he could see this, perhaps his most significant contribution to scholarship, appear in print. Yet there is no feeling of a work left ragged or incomplete: it is a thoroughly crafted and impeccably researched magnum opus, and it will take many years of study to assess the implications of the analyses which it contains. Pugh takes up from where he had left off in The Birth of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu’: the subtitle of the present volumes provides an exact summary of the new enterprise. This is the most complex, fascinating and frustrating period in the genesis of Proust's novel, amazingly fertile in invention, yet chaotic in execution. What Pugh essentially aims to do is work through the totality of the Cahiers and other manuscripts, typescripts and proofs which were produced at this time, weighing up their place in the emergence and elaboration of the novel, their chronological position with respect to one another and within individual notebooks, difficulties related to dating and to thematic changes in the actual material, and generally speaking to the way in which scholars have engaged with this vast corpus. And he is not kind to them! Everyone (the present reviewer included) is the recipient of more or less sharp criticism for errors of transcription, interpretation or annotation; yet it is necessary for him to do this, in order to put forward as accurate an account as possible of Proust's novel as it unfolds.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.144 · 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