Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article offre quelques réflexions sur les enjeux de l’histoire littéraire, telle qu’elle s’écrit dans le cadre d’une littérature dite “ mineure ”, ce qui est le cas de la littérature québécoise. Par comparaison avec l’histoire littéraire qui s’écrit en France, les histoires littéraires publiées au Québec présentent, depuis la toute pemière (le Répertoire national de James Huston, 1848) un certain nombre de traits singuliers : le débat sur son origine et sa qualification, le souci d’exhaustivité, la primauté accordée au corpus contemporain et la volonté de faire œuvre utile. L’étude des principaux ouvrages d’histoire littéraire québécois (anthologies, dictionnaires, synthèses) nous amène à considérer l’histoire littéraire comme un lieu de mémoire, au sens où l’entend Pierre Nora, mais peut-être davantage comme un lieu qui assurerait la mémoire d’un “ pays incertain ”, selon l’expression de Jacques Ferron, que celle d’une Littérature qui aurait atteint un statut canonique.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; 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".