Sur le romantisme littéraire canadien entre les années 1830 et 1860 : une étude comparative des discours sur la littérature de Joseph-Sabin Raymond et d’Henri-Raymond Casgrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article propose une analyse du discours sur la littérature de Joseph-Sabin Raymond et d’Henri-Raymond Casgrain, deux des représentants les plus éminents du romantisme littéraire canadien de 1830 à 1860. Leurs points de vue différents, flagrants notamment dans les textes qu’ils publient respectivement dans le Foyer canadien au cours de l’année 1866, offrent l’occasion d’une comparaison éclairante sur deux définitions concurrentes de la littérature canadienne pendant la période : la première plus classique, abreuvée à même les traités d’éloquence antiques et le romantisme catholique français ; la seconde plus moderne, résolument nationaliste, plus conservatrice également, quoique toujours aussi romantique, même s’il ne s’agit peut-être que d’un « romantisme de façade », ainsi que le suggère, entre autres, Micheline Cambron.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".