Prolégomènes à une méthodologie d’analyse des réseaux littéraires. Le cas de correspondance de Henri-Raymond Casgrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'analyse des réseaux littéraires a ses particularités. Or, les études littéraires ne disposent pas encore d'une méthodologie d'analyse d'ensemble qui réponde aux questionnements sociohistoriques singuliers que posent les réseaux littéraires par rapport aux groupes ou aux institutions littéraires. La correspondance de Henri-Raymond Casgrain, chef du réseau littéraire québécois de la deuxième moitié du XIXe siècle, quantitativement et qualitativement très riche (5,000 lettres échangées avec 850 correspondants d'un réseau international d'intellectuels très actifs), nous aide à jeter les bases d'une méthodologie d'analyse. Ainsi, nous pouvons mieux comprendre comment délimiter le territoire géographique, idéologique, spatial et temporel d'un réseau, ses zones de pouvoir et d'action, les activités des leaders et des membres, et ultimement comment apercevoir « le littéraire » au sein d'un réseau nécessairement polyfonctionnel.
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 | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".