MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946422089 · doi:10.7202/1059417ar

Fonctionnements du festival littéraire dans les espaces culturels franco-canadiens minoritaires

2019· article· fr· W2946422089 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
François Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtFrenchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cette étude, nous nous penchons sur le phénomène des festivals littéraires (à distinguer des salons du livre) depuis le milieu des années 1990 et leur mode de fonctionnement dans le cas des communautés francophones minoritaires au Canada. Après un bref aperçu de l’histoire du festival littéraire en Amérique du Nord, l’analyse se déplace vers deux événements festivaliers qui s’imposent au Canada francophone par leur impact, leur valeur symbolique et leur longévité relative : le Festival acadien de poésie (Caraquet, Nouveau-Brunswick) et Thin Air/Livres en fête (Winnipeg, Manitoba). Nous verrons que ces deux festivals oscillent entre un souci d’autonomie institutionnelle et linguistique et, faute de public suffisant, la nécessité de négocier une place, même marginale, dans la programmation des festivals littéraires canadiens-anglais. En dernier lieu, nous proposons une réflexion théorique sur la fonction identitaire du festival littéraire dans les cultures périphériques, à savoir celle d’affirmer par la mise en scène de la voix performative de l’écrivain la vitalité de la communauté minoritaire et d’assurer la transmission intergénérationnelle du patrimoine littéraire.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207