De “la folie qui serait venue dans les flancs des bateaux négriers”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: Ce travail propose une lecture du Livre d’Emma, publié en 2001, roman de Marie-Célie Agnant qui a fait l’objet de plusieurs études critiques suivant diverses approches, notamment postcoloniale et féministe. Cependant, la folie et l’institutionnalisation d’Emma méritent une attention particulière. Nous nous attarderons donc sur ces aspects du roman, en le situant dans les contextes de la réflexion foucaldienne sur le biopouvoir et de la folie dans le discours littéraire. Nous étudierons comment la folie d’Emma est produite par l’aberration du système colonial dont le pouvoir s’exerce sur des individus qui ne sont pas considérés comme des êtres humains et qui sont contrôlés et assujettis dans le but de les exploiter, système qui, comme le disait Frantz Fanon, était une usine à fabriquer des patients d’hôpitaux psychiatriques. ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ Da “loucura que teria vindo nos flancos dos navios negreiros”Resumo: Este trabalho propõe uma leitura da obra Livre d’Emma, romance de Marie-Célie Agnant, publicado em 2001, que foi objeto de muitos estudos críticos seguindo diversas abordagens, particularmente pós-colonial e feminista. Entretanto, a loucura e a institucionalização de Emma requerem atenção especial. Iremos nos concentrar, portanto, nesses aspectos do romance, situando-o no contexto da reflexão foucaultiana sobre o biopoder e no da loucura no discurso literário. Estudaremos como a loucura de Emma é produzida pelo absurdo do sistema colonial, cujo poder é exercido sobre indivíduos que não são considerados seres humanos e que são controlados e subjugados para serem explorados. Um sistema que, como dizia Frantz Fanon, era uma fábrica de pacientes de hospitais psiquiátricos.Palavras-chave: Colonialismo; Américas; Biopoder; Mulheres; Loucura.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".