MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27863167 · doi:10.1111/ijpo.12174

Persistance de la mémoire dans l'oeuvre de Robert Penn Warren

2000· dissertation· en· W27863167 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gwenola Le Grand-Le Cor

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Obesity · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homme de lettres au sens le plus large du terme, qui revendique l'interdependance du poetique et du romanesque, robert penn warren (1905-1989) n'accepte pour seule definition que celle d'ecrivain sudiste. C'est dans ce sud natal impregne d'histoire et de memoire qu'il tire son inspiration et c'est cet attachement du sud au passe qui traverse toute son oeuvre. Mais la memoire chez warren n'est jamais une donnee fixe et immuable, elle est toujours travaillee par l'oubli. Double mouvement de perte et de reconstitution, elle nait invariablement d'une tension entre continuite et discontinuite. Ce sont ainsi d'abord les > qui morcellent les personnages et trouent les textes romanesques et poetiques. Amnesie genealogique en forme de reniement du pere qui dissout le >, l'oubli est aussi pour warren cette amnesie historique qu'il nous donne a voir dans les blancs des poemes. Mais cette oeuvre construite sur l'absence et le refus de reminiscence est avant tout une oeuvre de la memoire, d'une memoire qui se veut quete de soi et retour a un > unifie, d'une memoire poetique faconnee a partir des lacunes de l'historiographie officielle. Poemes et romans sont alors a interpreter comme des monuments eriges contre l'oubli.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric ObesitySame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207