Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jf angue miroir ou langue porte-parole, langue symptome ou langue symbole ? La 0^ langue a surement ete tout cela a travers l'histoire de la litterature du Quebec, mais plus encore veritable objet de desir pour les ecrivain(e)s quebecois(es). Desir de se constituer comme sujet et objet ; « Nous », distincts, differents ; des Francais de France ; des francophones et anglophones du Canada ; des francophones d'ailleurs. Enfin, « nous autres » : Meme comme Autre. D'ou le surinvestissement du francais s 'accompagnant d'une resistance au bilinguisme francais-anglais. Dans le cadre de cet article, nous proposons de nous pencher sur l'ecriture de Daniel Gagnon, auteur quebecois contemporain a contre-courant. Cet ecrivain prolixe , mais encore relativement peu connu au Quebec, a fait du bilinguisme litteraire le moyen de reinventer sa langue maternelle. En allant a rencontre de la doxa qui veut que le bilinguisme vehicule l'idee de rejet et de trahison du francais, ainsi que l'idee de l'acculturation et de l'assimilation a la culture anglo-americaine d'autre part, Gagnon a entrepris le bilinguisme litteraire dans un but purement stylistique : eclater les langues francaise et anglaise « afin de trouver une nouvelle poesie». (Gagnon 1988, 2).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".