MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010720315 · doi:10.7202/1067288ar

Roman à clés et écriture du réel : La constellation du Lynx de Louis Hamelin et Forêt contraire d’Hélène Frédérick

2019· article· fr· W3010720315 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Dion

Bibliographic record

VenueEurostudia · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le roman à clés a mauvaise presse. Pourtant, il a innervé, tout au long du XXe siècle, des livres fondamentaux comme À la Recherche du temps perdu de Marcel Proust ou certains romans de James Joyce et de Virginia Woolf. Plus largement, de nombreux romans contemporains ont recours à des dispositifs de « floutage » pour faire entrer le réel, et plus particulièrement les personnes réelles, dans la fiction. Ainsi l’enjeu, dans les deux romans québécois qui se voient analysés dans cet article, consiste à trouver une autre manière d’inscrire le réel dans la fiction. Les exemples de « réticences » et d’hésitations vis-à-vis du nom propre correspondent ici à des stratégies diverses d’appréhension de l’histoire ou du rapport intime entre les êtres, qui commandent certes des détours mais qui, en même temps, exigent une certaine transparence de la référence pour laisser percevoir un poids de réalité garant d’une authenticité dont les lecteurs d’aujourd’hui auraient, dit-on, une insatiable faim. Ces stratégies, on le verra, invitent à revoir les rapports entre le réel et la fiction, à remettre en cause les frontières censées les cloisonner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurostudiaSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207