MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140769071 · doi:10.7202/016763ar

Écritures d’après Auschwitz

2007· article· fr· W2140769071 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesTestimonialArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le corpus testimonial produit par les survivants des camps de concentration nazis et du génocide des Juifs, on note un certain nombre de textes qui, pratiquant un mimétisme partiel, ne prétendent pas restituer fidèlement la réalité concentrationnaire, mais entendent s’interroger sur la qualité des souvenirs de cette réalité. On sent ainsi une tendance à se démarquer de ces traditions que sont le récit réaliste, la fonction référentielle et l’immersion fictionnelle. Leurs auteurs sont notamment Robert Antelme, Tadeusz Borowski, Charlotte Delbo, Zalmen Gradowski, Imre Kertész, Primo Levi, Piotr Rawicz. Ces textes portent en eux un potentiel critique. La présente étude vise à en dégager les principes stylistiques et les logiques sémantiques afin de mettre en évidence que le passage de l’expérience extrême dans le langage, en lequel consistent ces témoignages, répond à des exigences normatives et rationnelles, non à des questions d’indicibilité.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.240 · 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