MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039861574 · doi:10.7202/1070070ar

La trajectoire de Joseph-Guillaume Barthe (1816-1893) : un romantisme déphasé

2020· article· fr· W3039861574 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marie-Frédérique Desbiens, Jonathan Livernois

Bibliographic record

VenueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelle · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La trajectoire de Joseph-Guillaume Barthe (1816-1893), encore peu étudiée à ce jour, traverse tout le xixe siècle et est étroitement liée au mouvement romantique dont elle permet d’éclairer les contours et les mutations. La lecture à la croisée de l’analyse textuelle et de l’histoire intellectuelle qui est ici offerte permet d’en retracer l’évolution, en tirant le fil du parcours littéraire et politique de Barthe, de son appel à la littérature signé sous le pseudonyme de Marie-Louise dans Le Populaire, en mai 1837, à ses Souvenirs d’un demi-siècle parus en 1885, en passant par son journal de prison (1840) et Le Canada reconquis par la France (1855). On constatera un réel déphasage dans la perspective de l’homme de lettres après les rébellions de 1837-1838, comme si le romantisme libéral de Barthe, valorisé dans les années 1830, distinct du romantisme conservateur qui se mettait déjà en place dans les années 1840 et qui allait devenir la norme dans les années 1860 sous la gouverne d’Henri-Raymond Casgrain, était devenu une tare dont il fallait se défaire. D’où le passage de Barthe à la trappe de l’histoire littéraire qu’explique aussi cet article.

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)0.001
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelleSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207