RELECTURE D’EURYDICE ET D’ORPHÉE DANS "L’EMPREINTE DE L’ANGE" DE NANCY HUSTON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rereading the Myth of Eurydice and Orpheus in Nancy Huston’s Novel L’empreinte de l’ange. Perpetual and versatile, the myth of Orpheus is presented with new interpretations in each literary exploration of its complex symbolism. This paper aims to examine Canadian writer Nancy Huston's novel L’empreinte de l’ange from a mythocritical standpoint, revolving around a contemporary feminist reading of the myth of Orpheus. As such, our analysis observes the myth's transfigurations by means of a psychoanalytic framework targeted at the female protagonist, as well as in relation to the two Orphic couples present in the novel: Saffie-Raphaël and Saffie-András. This study focuses on the progress of the female protagonist in comparison to the mythical evolution of the nymph Eurydice. Article history: Received 21 July 2021; Revised 29 December 2021; Accepted 10 January 2022; Available online 31 March 2022; Available print 31 March 2022. REZUMAT. Relectura mitului lui Euridice și Orfeu în romanul L’empreinte de l’ange de Nancy Huston. Peren și polivalent, mitul lui Orfeu primește noi semnificații cu fiecare abordare literară. Lucrarea de față își propune în acest sens o analiză mitocritică asupra romanului L’empreinte de l’ange, al scriitoarei canadiene Nancy Huston, pornind de la noua perspectivă contemporană feministă asupra mitului orfic. Analiza noastră urmărește așadar mutațiile mitului printr-o grilă psihanalitică centrată asupra protagonistei și prin raportare la cele două cupluri orfice pe care le identificăm în acest roman: Saffie-Raphaël și Saffie-András. Problema care se impune în această abordare este aceea a evoluției protagonistei comparativ cu parcursul mitic al nimfei Euridice. Cuvinte-cheie: Nancy Huston, L’empreinte de l’ange, Orfeu și Euridice, psihologia traumatismului
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".