MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2948769008 · doi:10.58282/lht.2282

Les deux sourds. Enquête sur la mort de Louis Hémon

2019· article· fr· W2948769008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueFabula-LhT littérature histoire théorie · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume :La mort de Louis Hémon hante les discours critiques. Cela tient sans doute d’abord au fait que son œuvre est en grande partie posthume, ensuite à celui que cette mort est énigmatique : comment se fait‑il que Hémon ait pu mourir écrasé par un train en juillet 1913 ? N’a‑t‑il pas entendu le sifflement du train ? N’a‑t‑il pas compris le code de la circulation canadien (Hémon est français) ? Était‑ce un suicide ?Tout en mesurant bien les limites d’un tel geste d’analyse, il s’agira d’évaluer la validité de ces trois hypothèses par une lecture attentive de ses romans, à savoir Colin‑Maillard, Battling Malone, Monsieur Ripois et la Némésis et Maria Chapdelaine.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFabula-LhT littérature histoire théorie→Same topicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis→French-language works237,207→