Description de la résistance, résistance par la description dans Eva et Ruda : récit à deux voix de survivants de l’Holocauste d’Eva et Rudolph Roden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La parution en 2010 d’Eva et Ruda : récit à deux voix de survivants de l’Holocauste, d’Eva Roden et Rudolph Roden constitue pour le Centre commémoratif de l’Holocauste à Montréal un moment charnière : « c’est la première fois au Québec qu’une maison d’édition publie un témoignage de survivants montréalais en langue française. » Un examen narratologique des actes de résistance relevés dans le discours descriptif met d’abord ici en évidence un soulignement des modalités du « faire » autorisant une esquisse du personnage-résistant. L’analyse révèle ensuite chez le descripteur-résistant cette fois, un projet de résistance à l’oubli sous-tendu par la mise en place de deux stratégies à vocation rhétorique : l’« assimilation par reformulation » et les « plans comparatifs. » L’étude permet enfin de distinguer certaines marques de genre propres à la littérature concentrationnaire.The publication in 2010 of Eva et Ruda : récit à deux voix de survivants de l’Holocauste, by Eva Roden and Rudolph Roden, constitutes a turning point for the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre: “It is the first time in Quebec that a publishing house has published a testimony by Montreal survivors in French.” A narratological examination of the acts of resistance found in the descriptive discourse first highlights an underlining of the modalities of “doing” that allow for an outline of the character-resistance. The analysis then reveals in the describer-resistant, this time, a project of resistance to oblivion underpinned by the implementation of two rhetorical strategies: “assimilation by reformulation” and “comparative plans”. Finally, the study makes it possible to distinguish certain marks of genre specific to concentration camp literature.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".