MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2624822343 · doi:10.7202/1039903ar

La lecture empêchée dans les romans de Claude Simon

2017· article· fr· W2624822343 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne-Lise Blanc

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’étude s’intéresse aux difficultés de lecture qu’éprouvent fréquemment les personnages simoniens : soit qu’ils ne sachent pas bien lire, soit que ce qu’ils cherchent à lire ne soit pas ou plus visible, ou pas compréhensible. Aux difficultés matérielles de la lecture, sources de confusion, s’ajoute maintes fois le faible pouvoir de représentation du langage qui, quand il se laisse lire, ne renvoie qu’imparfaitement ou partiellement à ce qui est écrit. Le lecteur, captivé par la matérialité d’un texte dont le sens se dérobe, se livre alors souvent à une lecture évasive qui révèle au moins les mobiles et les sentiments de celui qui lit. Toutefois, comme ce qu’on entend ou voit à la sauvette dans l’oeuvre simonienne, ce qu’on parvient à lire malgré tout n’annule pas le pouvoir d’attraction des mots. Tronqués, effacés ou énigmatiques, ouverts à des sens multiples, ils incitent à la lecture, inclinent à la relecture. Car la lecture empêchée permet d’imaginer à partir de bribes lues, d’élaborer des hypothèses et souvent de révéler, outre la puissance créatrice d’un texte soumis à la coupure, tout simplement ce qui, dans le réel, n’a pas été clairement formulé.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangence→Same topicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis→French-language works237,207→