MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2381723184 · doi:10.18192/analyses.v11i2.1585

Configurations du sujet subalterne chez Abla Farhoud : Du mutisme féminin aux enjeux de la vocalité

2016· article· fr· W2381723184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cécilia W. Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoise · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCaribbean and African Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous examinons les configurations du sujet subalterne dans deux romans d’Abla Farhoud à partir d’un cadre théorique inspiré des postulats élaborés par Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak relatifs à la rature représentative de l’archive dont sont victimes les femmes subalternes et aux défis d’ordre herméneutique associés à la saisie de leur « voix-conscience ». Les enseignements de Spivak sont enrichis par une prise en compte de la réflexion d’Hélène Cixous ayant trait à l’aphonie féminine et à l’inscription d’une parole empreinte d’altérité à l’intérieur de la circulation des signes. Nous penchant sur les cas de Dounia dans Le bonheur a la queue glissante (2004 [1998]) et de la narratrice de Splendide Solitude (2001), nous cherchons à éclairer le mutisme féminin et à cibler les modalités énonciatives et rhétoriques non-canoniques adoptées par Farhoud pour rendre audible une voix habituellement réprimée. L’examen des enjeux de la vocalité (Maingueneau) chez ces personnages engagés dans un processus du devenir-sujet (Braidotti), relevant d’une trajectoire féminine saisie à rebours, permet d’enrichir notre compréhension de la poétique représentative et de l’axiologie éthique chez Farhoud.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoiseSame topicCaribbean and African Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207