Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de deux romans qui puisent largement à l’imaginaire western, Griffintown de Marie Hélène Poitras et À la recherche de New Babylon de Dominique Scali, l’article montre comment chacun des romans s’approprie cet imaginaire pour raconter une histoire, mais aussi pour fonder une représentation contemporaine du temps. En effet, le western convoque une temporalité complexe, capable de cumuler l’élan vers l’avenir, le regret de ce qui n’est plus, un rapport ambigu à la modernité en même temps qu’un mythe des origines. Les figures de la répétition et du légendaire donnent plus particulièrement forme au mouvement qui emprisonne les personnages dans deux ordres du temps en violente confrontation : la course folle du progrès et un temps cyclique et organique. L’imaginaire western réinvesti par ces deux romancières parvient ainsi à conjoindre en un même univers la linéarité et la répétition, tout en signifiant l’impossibilité même de leur cohabitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".