MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2138698487 · doi:10.7202/1023764ar

Sophie de Tréguier, roman populiste ?

2014· article· fr· W2138698487 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pierre Lecoeur

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1933, le jeune Henri Pollès reçoit le Prix du roman populiste, récemment fondé, pour son premier ouvrage, Sophie de Tréguier (1932), portrait sensible et pathétique d’une jeune trégoroise. L’ouvrage s’inscrit dans la vogue ruraliste et régionaliste largement saluée par les membres du jury de prix littéraires depuis le début du siècle. Appartenance qui ne peut que séduire le théoricien de l’école populiste, Léon Lemonnier, fervent défenseur de la tradition du roman historique ou à dimension ethnologique. Sophie de Tréguier répond également aux attentes des animateurs du mouvement par sa construction scénique et par l’usage qui y est fait de l’empathie. Deux grandes thématiques chères à Lemonnier s’y déploient : la vie intérieure, dépeinte par Pollès de manière impressionniste et délicate, et la « mystique des simples », thème à l’expression duquel le cadre du roman est particulièrement propice. Mais le roman se signale également par des singularités, notamment sur le plan du style, qui débordent le cadre de l’esthétique « populiste ». Par certains aspects, Sophie de Tréguier annonce les traits de l’oeuvre à venir, oeuvre dont les voies seront étrangères au naturalisme du premier roman.

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littéraires→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→