Une brève histoire des lectures de Mordecai Richler au Québec francophone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une idee recue veut que les lectures de l'œuvre de Mordecai Richler aient ete teintees au Quebec francophone par la publication des differents essais et articles de l'auteur sur les questions linguistiques et sur le nationalisme. Cependant, un retour sur l'histoire de la critique richlerienne au Quebec permet de mieux comprendre comment des mecanismes argumentatifs deja en place, articulant les rapports au « nous » et a la nation, n'ont fait qu'etre exacerbes par les polemiques. Cet emballement de la critique durant les annees 1980 et 1990 aura eu pour effet paradoxal de projeter Richler a l'avant-plan en tant que figure antagonique, un role que ses defenseurs utiliseront par la suite pour s'en prendre a une vision restreinte de l'appartenance nationale. Loin d'etre le resultat d'une hybridation ou d'une rencontre des cultures, la reappropriation de l'œuvre richlerienne par une partie de la critique quebecoise sert ainsi davantage a mettre de l'avant une nouvelle conception de la quebecite. Abstract: There exists a preconceived notion that the works of Mordecai Richler have, in francophone Quebec, been tainted by his various essays and articles on linguistic issues and nationalism; however, a review of the history of Richlerian criticism in Quebec yields a better understanding of how existing argumentative mechanisms, articulating the relationships between us and the nation, were only strengthened by such polemics. The runaway criticism of the 1980s and 1990s had the paradoxical effect of projecting Richler to the forefront of debates as an antagonistic figure, a role that his defenders subsequently used to attack a restrictive vision of national membership. Rather than resulting from a hybridization or meeting of cultures, the reappropriation of Richler's work by a portion of Quebec critics serves to frame a new conception of what it means to be Quebecois.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".