« La Sereine de mer » et « Les Bossus ». Marius Barbeau et l’édition des contes populaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jean-Pierre Pichette ajoute un nouveau chapitre à l’étude du passage de l’oral à l’écrit qu’il a entreprise. Il s’interroge ici sur l’attitude de Marius Barbeau face à l’édition des contes de tradition orale. Il présente au complet le portrait du trio amical des « pères du folklore », les Marius Barbeau, Luc Lacourcière et Félix-Antoine Savard. Il expose en introduction le malentendu, créé par Barbeau lui-même, qui entoura la publication savante d’un conte populaire acadien, « La Sereine de mer et les trois haches ». Il examine ensuite, par contre-expertise, la qualité et la précision du traitement d’un autre conte, « Les Bossus », depuis les notes sténographiques de terrain jusqu’à la publication dans une revue scientifique. Aussi peut-il dissiper le malentendu et montrer que la méthode de Barbeau répondait à toutes les exigences de sa science et, même, qu’elle devançait son époque, grâce à la technique de notation sténographique qu’il maîtrisait, avant la généralisation des appareils enregistreurs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".