Ce que le roman catholique fait au roman sentimental : le cas de la collection « Amour et aventure »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Du début des années 1940 au milieu des années 1960, l’édition populaire au Québec connaît des succès sans précédents, notamment par le biais de séries en fascicules principalement publiées par les Éditions Police-Journal. Le contenu de ces fascicules, plus moderne et urbain, échappe à l’emprise des autorités cléricales et propose des valeurs contestables sous l’angle de la morale catholique. Pour contrer ce phénomène, les Éditions Fides, maison catholique, créent en 1947 la collection « Amour et aventure », destinée principalement à un lectorat féminin. En examinant ces textes du point de vue de la logique du roman sentimental, cet article cherche à en comprendre l’échec.From the early 1940s to the mid-1960s, popular edition in Quebec enjoyed unprecedented successes, notably through the publication of many series of short novels mainly published by Éditions Police-Journal. The content of these more modern and urban short novels escaped the control of the clerical authorities and proposed, in the opinion of Roman Catholic elites, questionable values. To counter such a growing influence, Fides created the collection “Amour et aventure” in 1947. Analysing these publications from the perspective of the more commercial sentimental novels, this article seeks to understand the reasons behind its failure.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".