Esquisse des chemins de la création chez Robert Melançon et Jacques Brault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméCette étude s’intéresse au discours portant sur la création poétique dans les œuvres de Robert Melançon et de Jacques Brault, faisant ressortir certains de leurs points communs et de leurs différences. Chez Robert Melançon, on remarque la prégnance des représentations de l’atelier, ainsi que les valeurs qu’elles véhiculent, telles que le travail, l’approximation qui perdure jusque dans le texte fini et la nécessité impérieuse de l’écriture. Melançon s’attache ainsi à la figure du poète-artisan et son écriture du carpe diem qui cherche à saisir l’éphémère. Chez Jacques Brault, c’est davantage la figure du lecteur qui retient, ainsi que les pratiques de réécritures de textes tenus pour fondamentaux ou de ses propres textes. Cette conception de l’écriture comme une chaîne de textes qui se répondent à travers le temps permet de préciser la métaphore du chemin présente dans plusieurs titres de ses ouvrages. AbstractThis article analyzes the discourse of poetic writing in the works of Robert Melançon and Jacques Brault, highlighting some of their similarities and differences. In Robert Melançon’s books, the representations of the workshop and the idea of the poet as a craftsman are given significant importance. The workshop embodies certain values, such as tedious work, the understanding that a piece of writing is always an approximation and that even a published text should display imperfection, as well as the imperious necessity of writing. The figure of the poet as a craftsman and Melançon’s writing of the carpe diem, that attempts to capture ephemeral moments, are central to his reflection on poetic writing. Jacques Brault however, puts more emphasis on the figure of the reader, and the practice of re-writing other’s essential texts, or his own. The concept of writing as a chain of texts that echo each other over time permits an explanation of the metaphor of the path [le chemin] which is present in several of his book titles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".