Le conte oral : Lieu de rencontre des littératures des francophonies d’Amérique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lors que le conte de tradition orale s'était longtemps maintenu vivant à peu près exclusivement par la parole, il appert de plus en plus qu'il doive dorénavant sa survie au médium des lettrés, l'écriture, qui le prend en charge en attendant qu'un conteur le ranime.Curieux paradoxe... Ainsi, pour les folkloristes collectant les contes, et justement dans le but de préserver le produit de leurs récoltes, se pose depuis plus d'un siècle la délicate question du passage de l'oral à l'écrit.Car il s'agit bien de trouver la meilleure façon de rendre compte de cette pratique de communication orale, directe, dont l'intensité de la parole, l'intonation, les gestes et autres composantes ne se traduisent pas aisément en mots accessibles au lecteur : comment transposer des récits oraux, captés au fil du discours, lors d'une prestation spontanée ou commandée, au moyen de notes manuscrites, rarement sténographiques, ou d'une enregistreuse de la voix et de l'image ?tJïïantarias àrôles at morvaittousos f \ De l'oral à l'écrit : aller-retour
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".