MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100418199 · doi:10.7202/501277ar

L’ironie : stratégie de discours et pouvoir argumentatif

2005· article· fr· W2100418199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danielle Forget

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compte tenu de ses caractéristiques, il n'est pas étonnant que l'ironie soit souvent employée dans les œuvres littéraires misant sur un contenu idéologique à portée politique. En tant que stratégie discursive, ses propriétés pragmatiques se déploient dans l'ensemble du texte, suggérant un véritable programme cognitif d'interprétation, basé sur les représentations, les éventuelles ruptures de cohérence et la distanciation. Cette étude tente d'en préciser la teneur par ses caractéristiques dominantes dans deux œuvres à provenance culturelle diverse : un roman brésilien, Souvenirs d'un Gratte-papier ( 1909) de Lima Barreto, et un roman français, Le Palais des claques ( 1986) de Pascal Bruckner.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207