MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585955177 · doi:10.7202/1038591ar

Papineau, « celui qui n’écrit pas »

2017· article· fr· W2585955177 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan Livernois

Bibliographic record

VenueVoix et Images · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude s’attache à la présence de Louis-Joseph Papineau dans les manuels et essais d’histoire littéraire du Québec ainsi qu’aux incidences idéologiques de sa représentation en tant qu’écrivain. Elle s’attache, notamment, au Manuel d’histoire de la littérature canadienne-française (1918 et 1939) et à l’Histoire de la littérature canadienne (1930) de Mgr Camille Roy ; à l’Histoire de la littérature canadienne-française (1957) de Samuel Baillargeon ; au Manuel de littérature canadienne-française (1967) de Roger Duhamel ; à l’Histoire de la littérature française du Québec, en quatre volumes (Beauchemin, 1967-1969), dirigée par Pierre de Grandpré ; à La littérature québécoise depuis ses origines (1974-1997) de Laurent Mailhot ; à La vie littéraire au Québec (premier volume paru en 1991) ; et à l’Histoire de la littérature québécoise (2007) de Michel Biron, François Dumont et Élisabeth Nardout-Lafarge. Nous verrons s’y jouer les stratégies alternatives d’intégration et de refus de la charge symbolique et politique de « l’écrivain » Papineau. Cela permettra de mieux comprendre pourquoi ces stratégies sont étonnamment récurrentes au fil de l’histoire littéraire, malgré les tours et détours idéologiques et historiographiques du xxe siècle.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVoix et ImagesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207