MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081395104 · doi:10.7202/1071101ar

La mère abjecte dans la transcréation québécoise

2020· article· fr· W3081395104 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marie Pascal

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si les champs de la sociologie et de la psychanalyse se sont intéressés à la thématique de l’abjection, à ce jour, peu d’études ont été consacrées à ses formes artistiques, soient-elles littéraires ou cinématographiques. Dans cet article, nous évaluons les représentations de la mère abjecte entre quatre paires de textes et films de la transcréation québécoise :Un homme et son péché(Grignon 1933 ; Binamé 2002),Le torrent(Hébert 1950 ; Lavoie 2012),Le collectionneur(Brouillet 1995 ; Beaudin 2002) etBorderline(Labrèche 2000 ; Charlebois 2008). Pivot de la thématique de ces romans, la mère apparaît comme cause de marginalité et lieu honni pour les personnages qui tentent de s’en éloigner. Or les films tirés de ces ouvrages ne se contentent pas de représenter les sèmes abjects de la mère à l’écran : ils transcréent cette thématique qui investit en conséquence les différentes strates filmiques. À partir de la narratologie d’André Gaudreault, nous considérons tour à tour, dans quatre micro-analyses (portant sur les prégénériques, les effets de tournage, de cadrage et de montage), différents visages de l’abjection disséminée entre images, textes et sons.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.129 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiquesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207