Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgresser est un terme très intéressant qui peut prendre différentes dimensions dans des contextes distincts. Dans le monde de la littérature, la transgression est souvent suggérée par une échappée de normes. Ces normes peuvent découler des règles du genre dans lequel un écrivain s’inscrit. En même temps, ces normes peuvent être le reflet d’institutions à respecter avec des codes de vie bien précis. Nous proposons dans notre article de nous pencher sur deux écrivaines. En effet, Assia Djebar et Charlotte Brontë ont transgressé le genre du roman dans une écriture merveilleusement attirante, réaliste et inspiratrice qui réclame une ouverture sur bien des domaines. Comment ont-elles procédé ? Quels sont les éléments qui leur ont permis d’écrire ? En même temps, thématiquement, ce qui est exposé dans les romans de ces deux écrivaines représente une transgression des normes du code de vie à une époque où peu de femmes pouvaient être porteuses de témoignages à travers l’écriture. En effet pour le dix-neuvième siècle en Angleterre et le vingtième siècle en Algérie, les quêtes des écrivaines vont bien au delà des normes à respecter. Ce qui peut paraitre en 2013 comme normal, ne l’a pas toujours été. Quelles sont les exigences que ces écrivaines ont du braver ? Quels sont les obstacles et les interdits communs aux deux écrivaines dans des époques et des pays bien différents ? Quelles sont les normes, reflétées dans leurs romans, qu’elles se devaient de transgresser ? Notre article propose d’illustrer comment ces deux écrivaines sont parvenues à faire reconnaitre et accepter leurs romans dans des sociétés dominées par des productions masculines. Le prix de la célébrité n’a pas été acquis facilement. The price of fame acquired by transgression Abstract: To transgress is a very interesting term which can take different dimensions in different contexts. In the world of literature, transgression is often suggested by a by a breakaway of standards. These standards may arise from rules of the genre in which a writer falls. At the same time, these standards may reflect institutions to comply with specific codes of conduct. This article proposes to look at two women writers. Indeed, Assia Djebar and Charlotte Brontë transgressed the genre of the novel in a wonderfully attractive writing, realistic and inspiring, claiming an opening on many areas. How did they do it? What are the elements that have allowed them to write? At the same time, thematically, what is stated in the novels of these writers is a transgression of the code of living standards at a time when few women could be carriers of testimony through writing. Indeed for the nineteenth century in England and the twentieth century in Algeria, women writers’ quests go well beyond the standards to be met. What may seem as normal in 2013, has not always been so. What are the requirements that these writers were to brave? What are the obstacles and the banned aspects which are common to both writers in different times and different countries? What are the standards they reflect in their novels and which they had to break? This article is to illustrate how these two women writers have managed to be recognized and to have their novels accepted in societies dominated by male productions. The price of fame was not acquired easily.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".