MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194012516 · doi:10.18192/analyses.v7i2.356

« Dans les marges du cahier de textes ». Quelques aspects de l'autoréflexivité dans l'écriture guibertienne

2012· article· fr· W2194012516 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandro Badin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoise · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesCharacter (mathematics)PortraitIdentity (music)Art historyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faisant de lui-même le personnage principal de son œuvre, Hervé Guibert nous parle nécessairement de son travail d'écrivain. À travers ses récits, il dessine l'image d'un écrivain polymorphe, qui prend une double attitude par rapport à son métier. Si, d'un côté, l'acte de l'écriture et les manuscrits sont montrés, de l'autre, il ne cesse d'accuser sa retenue et à manifester une sorte de pudeur. À la recherche d'une identité scripturaire, l'auteur tend à assimiler ses manuscrits à son corps, à sa fibre, dans un projet global de dévoilement de soi.AbstractBeing the main character of his own books, Hervé Guibert writes about his life as a writer. Through his texts he draws his portrait as a polymorphous artist, taking a double attitude towards his activity. On the one hand the act of writing, as well as drafts and manuscripts are shown, but on the other hand he constantly tries to protect and conceal them from sight. Looking for his own scriptural identity, the author tends to identify his manuscripts with his body, so that papers, drafts, manuscripts come to acquire a strong corporeal dimension in a wider project of representation of the self.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoiseSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207