Les archives sans repos: enjeux d’une édition électronique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1970, Gabrielle Roy published Windflower (La Rivière sans repos), a short novel preceded by three short stories “Nouvelles Esquimaudes.” Conserved in the Gabrielle Roy collection of Library and Archives Canada, the archives contain a myriad of manuscripts, dactylograms and sets of proofs, genuine evidence of word done by this author. In this article, the researchers put forward a meticulous genetic study of the three “Nouvelles Esquimaudes,” which takes the “Voyage en Ungava,” a travel journal written by Gabrielle Roy in 1961 in Fort Chimo, as its starting point. The authors highlight the novelist’s work methods, notably her horizontal and vertical rewriting. The digital publishing of the Windflower archives allows in itself the usage of an enlarged critical apparatus, but it also contains several specific concerns, thus raising several challenges. Résumé En 1970, Gabrielle Roy publie La Rivière sans repos, un court roman précédé de trois « Nouvelles Esquimaudes ». Les archives, conservées dans le fonds Gabrielle Roy à Bibliothèques et Archives Canada, comportent de nombreux manuscrits, dactylogrammes et jeux d’épreuves, véritables témoins du travail effectué par la romancière. Dans le cadre de cet article, les chercheurs proposent une étude génétique minutieuse des trois « Nouvelles Esquimaudes » qui prend pour point de départ « Voyage en Ungava », journal d’un séjour effectué par Gabrielle Roy à Fort-Chimo en 1961. Ils mettent en lumière les méthodes de travail de la romancière, notamment ses réécritures horizontales et verticales. L’édition électronique des archives de La Rivière sans repos permet quant à elle l’utilisation d’un appareil critique augmenté, mais elle comporte aussi de nombreux enjeux spécifiques et soulève donc plusieurs défis. Mots-clés: Gabrielle Roy; La Rivière sans repos; Nouvelles Esquimaudes; roman; Canada; Fort-Chimo; génétique; archives; manuscrits; L’édition électronique; HyperRoy; XXe siècle
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".