MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205831717 · doi:10.29173/af29431

Rêves amers et Conte cruel : les jeunes migrants de Maryse Condé

2022· article· fr· W4205831717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pooja Booluck-Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueALTERNATIVE FRANCOPHONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCaribbean and African Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Des sept textes de jeunesse écrits par Maryse Condé, quatre portent sur la migration, un mouvement humain compliqué, dur et fréquent qui touche à beaucoup d’enfants du monde. Dans Rêves amers et Conte cruel, Condé nous introduit à deux personnages, une fille de 13 ans et un garçon de 14 ans, qui sont déchus de leur enfance à cause de défis financiers et de pressions familiales. Dans Rêves amers, Rose-Aimée quitte sa terre natale en raison d’une sècheresse prolongée pour se trouver un emploi. Bien qu’elle espère fréquenter une école et travailler en même temps, elle finit par être victime d’exploitation. Dans Conte cruel, Tafa est responsable de la famille de son frère, qui s’est exilé à Dubaï pour une raison similaire à celle de Rose-Aimée. Ce dernier ne donnant aucun signe de vie, Tafa part à sa recherche. Même s’il a reçu le don d’une vache sacrée qui lui permet de produire des perles en pleurant, Tafa n’échappe pas à plusieurs difficultés pendant son voyage. Cette étude propose de faire ressortir les convergences entre ces deux textes de Condé pour comprendre le message qu’elle veut transmettre aux enfants sur la migration. Ce travail examinera la forme esthétique et l’approche sociocritique adoptées par Condé pour se rapprocher de l’imaginaire de l’enfant.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueALTERNATIVE FRANCOPHONESame topicCaribbean and African Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207