MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311351085 · doi:10.3828/qs.2022.13

« Je marche avec des bottines rouges »: Trajectoires féministes et politiques dans <i>Les remparts de Québec</i> d’Andrée Maillet

2022· article· fr· W4311351085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie-Ève Sévigny

Bibliographic record

VenueQuebec Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article aborde Les remparts de Québec (1965) comme une œuvre charnière de la Révolution tranquille, entravée dans sa réception par un biais de lecture sexiste de la part de la critique immédiate, qui a initié son oubli. Le livre d’Andrée Maillet, tout en s’inscrivant dans l’élan contestataire et transgressif du temps, se distingue en proposant un roman national féministe, où la figure de la jeune fille revendique le droit d’exister, tant pour elle-même que pour la nation québécoise. À travers la révolte de la protagoniste Arabelle contre son aliénation par sa famille bourgeoise et conservatrice, la représentation de Québec illustre les abus de pouvoir du système patriarcal. Contre l’immobilisme granitique de la ville du père s’opposent les trajectoires charnelles de la flâneuse. À l’heure où les poètes et romanciers masculins exaltent l’idéal de la femme-pays, à laquelle ils adressent leurs désirs d’émancipation nationale, Maillet fait de la figure une véritable héroïne, qui énonce elle-même le désir d’indépendance dont elle devient le porte-étendard. Ce faisant, l’écriture féministe revendique un progrès universel, pour les femmes comme pour tous les autres citoyens.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueQuebec StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207