MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2091439764 · doi:10.7202/1007160ar

Ombres et lumières. Architecture énonciative dans Le pays (2005) de Marie Darrieussecq

2011· article· fr· W2091439764 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philippe Willocq

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’architecture d’un roman dépend généralement de certaines contraintes, telles que l’énonciation, les personnages, l’intrigue et la dimension spatio-temporelle de l’ensemble. Ces quatre perspectives construisent ainsi une oeuvre dont la cohérence répond au subtil équilibre de leur combinaison. Mais que se passe-t-il lorsque l’une ou plusieurs de ces composantes sont délibérément biaisées ? L’édifice textuel deviendrait-il alors un objet purement formel dont le contenu ne serait là que pour étayer les idées ou l’idéologie de son auteur ? Le pays (2005) de Marie Darrieussecq dessine en filigrane cette problématique. L’intrigue, la dimension spatio-temporelle et les personnages y sont aisément identifiables. Toutefois, l’énonciation pose problème par un chevauchement de voix dont les entrelacs offrent une consistance remarquable. Le paradoxe de ce texte, à la fois débridé et construit, lui confère une puissance d’énonciation qui, bien au-delà du fait diégétique, contribue à l’architecture réflexive du roman. Une architecture réflexive donc, mais sous l’éclairage d’une énonciation faite d’ombres et de lumières.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littéraires→Same topicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis→French-language works237,207→