MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788884695 · doi:10.4000/dossiersgrihl.6868

Le concept de braconnage. Présences de Borges dans l’œuvre de Michel de Certeau

2018· article· fr· W2788884695 on OpenAlexaff
Annick Louis

Bibliographic record

VenueLes dossiers du Grihl · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBorges, Kipling, and Jewish Identity
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif de cet article est de proposer une réflexion sur les occurrences de Jorge Luis Borges dans l’œuvre de Michel de Certeau, et en particulier le rôle que la littérature et les conceptions de l’écrivain argentin ont pu jouer dans la mise en place du concept de « braconnage ». Nous étudions la proximité de certains concepts chez les deux auteurs (la lecture, le lecteur), étroitement liés à leur positionnement par rapport à la culture populaire contemporaine. Pour finir, les formes du renvoi utilisées par Certeau sont analysées dans leur portée de citation et d’appropriation.

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)0.004
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.019
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes dossiers du GrihlSame topicBorges, Kipling, and Jewish IdentityFrench-language works237,207