MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156189256 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9708

Le rôle des femmes selon la perspective des narrateurs peu fiables

2018· article· fr· W3156189256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jordan Ingola, Jessica Oh, Rebecca Tumino

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Cultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notre présentation examinera les rôles des personnages féminins dans les films Dans la maison et Tous les matins du monde en analysant la narration peu fiable des personnages principaux, Claude et Marin Marais. Chaque personnage manipule la réalité, ce qui les rend non fiables. Claude mélange la réalité et la fiction pour inspirer et développer son histoire, sous la forme d’expression de son écriture. De la même manière, Marin omet certains aspects de la réalité en racontant l’histoire de son apprentissage avec Sainte Colombe, mais d’une manière qui n’est pas délibérée. À cause de cette narration peu fiable, les narrateurs aussi omettent certains aspects de la vie des personnages féminins. Les deux narrateurs, Claude et Marin, ignorent Jeanne et Esther, ce qui, par conséquent, force ces femmes à affirmer leur propre rôle dans la narration. À cause de la narration peu fiable, les figures féminines dans les deux films sont presque indétectables (ce qui se détache de la réalité) jusqu’au point où elles interviennent dans l’histoire. Éventuellement, les narrateurs ne peuvent plus nier l’importance du rôle des femmes, ce qui les force à les inclure à là fin de leurs histoires respectives, et de rapporter une version de réalité qui est plus juste.

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)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicDiverse Cultural and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207