Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Camerounaise Were Were Liking a produit trois romans d’une esthétique particulière qu’elle désigne sous l’expression « chant-romans ». Ces romans alternent, et d’une manière très accentuée, le chant et la narration. Le chant, dont il est question ici, est polyphonique et protéiforme. Il est tiré dans l’oralité africaine dont la particularité est de niveler dans le même registre le chant, l’épopée, et le conte. La structure externe de ces chants donne au roman l’aspect d’un texte poétique. Quant à la structure interne, elle construit sa signification à travers la structure des chants dont le but est de transmettre des savoirs historique ou culturels. La vision du monde de l’auteur se lit à partir de l’organisation qu’il fait à partir de cet héritage culturel et historique. La narration elle-même se démarque du récit classique. Le narrateur est un conteur. La prise de parole reflète des rituels. Le narrateur se substitue très souvent à la communauté dont il rapporte le "dire". Ces textes laissent voir une originalité quant à la réforme, aux nouveautés scripturaires du genre romanesque.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".