Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is on the portrayal of insanity in Québec literature and, in particular, on the relationships between Québec literature and insanity. A look at Québec history reveals how insanity follows the nature of society as it evolves from a religious base to a political one. Research shows that, from 1837 to 1920, insanity in literature was caused by an emotional shock, deception in love or thwarted ambitions. Between the first and second world wars, insanity was brought on by debauchery, money and women. So, for over a century, we see insanity as having punitive value. It's only in the 1950s that literature portrays insanity as a consciousness raiser: From having negative connotations, it suddenly has positive ones. Finally, from 1960 to today, insanity stems from failure, whether it be love-related, social or political. In most novels, the insane individual ends up dying. It's as if novelists had wanted to reinforce the notions of punishment, failure and despair linked to insanity. Why?
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.005 |
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".