MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592221912 · doi:10.4000/ilcea.4124

Des fleuves et des nations dans Seven Rivers of Canada (1963)

2017· article· fr· W2592221912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
André Dodeman

Bibliographic record

VenueILCEA · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical scienceEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alors connu au Canada pour les cinq romans qu’il écrit entre 1945 et 1963, Hugh MacLennan ne se cantonne pas pour autant à cette forme. Il choisit en effet l’essai pour relayer ses convictions politiques et artistiques et le récit de voyage pour rassembler un public canadien autour de l’idée d’une nation que seuls les fleuves du pays peuvent traduire sous forme d’image. Cet article montrera tout d’abord de quelle manière l’auteur s’extrait du rôle de l’écrivain engagé qui s’efforce d’éclairer ses lecteurs pour devenir un voyageur qui partage son expérience de terrain et esthétise un paysage alors méconnu du grand public. Le paysage nordique que certains écrivains perçoivent comme chaotique et irrégulier devient, sous la plume de MacLennan, un territoire national ordonné qui invite le lecteur à mieux se l’approprier. Ce travail propose de montrer que le récit de voyage de l’auteur reflète en réalité une nette opposition entre deux conceptions très différentes de la nation : l’une qui s’inspire d’une remise en cause de l’idée traditionnelle de nation et tient compte des changements littéraires et démographiques du pays, et l’autre, celle de MacLennan, qui reste attachée au canon littéraire européen et cherche à subsumer les différences culturelles dans une nation unie.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueILCEASame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207