Rabelais et l’hybridité des récits rabelaisiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, a conference was held in Montreal on the hybridity of Rabelaisian writings.This was the first international conference exclusively devoted to François Rabelais to take place in Canada, and it drew about a hundred of the greatest specialists on Rabelais from North America and Europe.The book under review results in part from this conference.Intended for specialist readers, it contains fifty articles that bring forth a new contribution to the question of textual hybridity in the work of Rabelais.Diane Desrosiers, who wrote the introduction, specializes in both Rabelais and women writers from the Renaissance.Claude La Charité is a prolific researcher on Rabelais, Christian Veilleux is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto, and Tristan Vigliano is a specialist of the portrayals of Islam in French literature.In her introduction, Desrosiers describes the conference that gave rise to this collaboration.She discusses the concept of hybridity and proceeds to define five hybrid forms: typographic, linguistic, intertextual, generic, and a form associated with intermediality.She notes that contributors have a literary focus and therefore examine generic, intertextual, and linguistic hybridity only.In her descriptions of these three forms, she details the texts that compose the corresponding sections of the volume.She concludes the introduction by suggesting that the enduring strength of Rabelais's oeuvre may be due to its hybrid nature.The book then moves on to the theme of the first part: generic hybridity.In this section, Edwin M. Duval leads us to consider the notion of hybridity at the time of Rabelais.Jean-François Vallée shows that at the centre of Rabelais work is a dialogue between author and reader that resembles a sort of banquet.Claude La Charité demonstrates, in his excellent, clear, and precise article, the hybridity of what is called the "heavy" metaphor (an expression from Rabelais) contained in the "Briefve Declaration" attached to the "Quart Livre." The brilliant and easy-to-follow contribution of E. Bruce Hayes, on the other hand, shows the hybridity of Rabelais's work by considering it as a text punctuated with elements from farce.He employs examples from "Pantagruel" and the
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".