MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581160570 · doi:10.7202/1038502ar

Les vertus de l’oubli : ambivalences du passé arthurien chez Kazuo Ishiguro

2016· article· fr· W2581160570 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Patrick W. Moran

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Buried Giant (2014) de Kazuo Ishiguro est un roman à la frontière des genres : l’auteur puise dans la matière arthurienne, notamment dans Gauvain et le chevalier vert, pour élaborer un texte à mi-chemin entre la fantasy, le conte de fées et le roman intime. Située peu après la mort du roi Arthur, l’action se concentre sur un couple vieillissant et présente une Bretagne crépusculaire, où la coexistence des Bretons et des Saxons se fait de plus en plus inconfortable. Une étrange amnésie frappe l’île, et le souvenir d’événements récents risque sans cesse de resurgir et de briser l’équilibre des forces, en même temps qu’il menace de ruiner l’harmonie fragile qui unit les deux protagonistes. Un tel travail sur la mémoire et ses ambivalences est typique de l’oeuvre d’un auteur qui privilégie les zones de non-dit et d’incertitude. En se concentrant sur le rapport ambivalent que The Buried Giant entretient avec ses sources médiévales, cet article cherche à montrer comment Kazuo Ishiguro, tout en se tenant à distance de l’imaginaire médiéval et breton, réactive en fait la réflexion arthurienne sur l’impermanence, et construit un récit qui assume pleinement ses penchants allégoriques.

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)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicFrench Literature and Critical TheoryFrench-language works237,207