Comme un roman : regards sur la littérarité de trois ouvrages classiques de la cuisine ménagère
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les livres de cuisine constituent un immense corpus de textes encore très peu étudiés malgré la place importante qu’ils occupent dans l’imaginaire collectif. Ce mémoire propose d’éclairer une part de leur valeur culturelle par une analyse littéraire de trois ouvrages classiques de la littérature culinaire : L’Encyclopédie de la cuisine canadienne de Jehane Benoit (1963), Les Recettes faciles de Françoise Bernard (1965) et The I Hate to Cook Book de Peg Bracken (1960). Envisagé d’abord comme genre textuel, puis comme ouvrage unitaire et ultimement comme ouvrage littéraire, le livre de cuisine révèle une esthétisation de la relation entre auteure et lectrice. L’étude des manifestations de cette esthétisation à travers le déploiement d’une voix auctoriale, de la création d’un espace diégétique et de la personnification de la lectrice apporte une meilleure compréhension de la façon dont ces ouvrages participent à la construction d’un récit de société.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".