MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240728416 · doi:10.7202/1087129ar

Eutrope Gagnon contre Louis Hémon. Mythe, folklore et communauté dans Maria Chapdelaine de Sébastien Pilote

2021· article· fr· W4240728416 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David Bélanger, Thomas Carrier-Lafleur

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une lecture de la plus récente adaptation de Maria Chapdelaine au cinéma (2021), par le réalisateur québécois Sébastien Pilote (Le vendeur, 2011 ; Le démantèlement, 2013 ; La disparition des lucioles, 2018). Cette nouvelle transposition écranique est replacée dans le continuum des précédentes adaptations du roman (par Julien Duvivier en 1934, Marc Allégret en 1950 et Gilles Carle en 1983), face auxquelles Pilote choisit d’effectuer plusieurs pas de côté. Il est démontré que le projet du cinéaste peut et doit se comprendre comme une tentative de défolklorisation du texte de Hémon – geste également revendiqué par Carle, mais dans un sens bien différent –, autour duquel se sont depuis longtemps construits un mythe et une imagerie. Cette relecture à contre-courant d’une oeuvre et de son héritage par un média contemporain, qui sera menée ici dans le sillage de l’anthropologie littéraire, souligne les tensions narratives et éthiques du récit, de même que le rôle qu’y occupent les personnages, à commencer par celui, historiquement malmené par le septième art, d’Eutrope Gagnon, « héros » aussi inattendu qu’indéniable du film de Pilote.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207