Violences rhétoriques et scènes de conflit chez Mordecai Richler et David Homel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'etude des zones de tension de la litterature quebecoise permettrait, selon plusieurs chercheurs, de mettre au jour des « loyautes conflictuelles » et poserait ainsi « la des balises, des assises, des lieux communs, et des lieux d'enonciation qui nous font appartenir a un univers de discours plus qu'a un autre » (Harel 2008, 52). Nombreux sont les travaux sur la litterature anglo-quebecoise qui ont explore ces « loyautes conflictuelles » de maniere theorique, tentant de rectifier les grandes lignes du recit escortant l'institution litteraire du Quebec. Il s'agissait de penser d'abord le cadre - historique, linguistique, territorial, heuristique - et les frontieres internes d'un vaste corpus avant de pouvoir lire, au sens fort du terme, les œuvres anglo-quebecoises. Afin de repondre aux analyses institutionnelles deja publiees, le present article propose une micro-analyse de deux scenes de conflit empruntees aux œuvres de Mordecai Richler et de David Homel. Les deux scenes choisies se presentent comme des recits de vengeance et renvoient, chacune a leur maniere, a l'histoire de la diaspora juive. Elles temoignent egalement d'un certain rapport a la « memoire exemplaire », telle qu'elle est definie par Tzvetan Todorov dans Les abus de la memoire . Abstract: Studying areas of tension within Quebec literature would, in the view of a number of researchers, shed light on some conflicting loyalties and thereby pose the question of markers, foundations, common spaces, and places of statement that bind us to one universe of discourse more than another [translation] (Harel 2008, 52). Numerous works on English-language Quebec literature have explored these conflicting loyalties in a theoretical manner, attempting to redefine the outlines of the traditional Quebec novel. This involved rethinking the framework—historical, linguistic, territorial, and heuristic—and internal boundaries of a vast body of work as a first step before the works of Anglo-Quebeckers could, in the strictest sense of the word, be read. In response to previously published institutional analyses, this article proposes a micro-analysis of two scenes of conflict drawn from the works of Mordecai Richler and David Homel. Both scenes involve stories of vengeance, with each referring, in its own way, to the story of the Jewish diaspora. They also bear a certain relationship to the concept of exemplary memory as defined by Tzvetan Todorov in The Abuse of Memory .
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".