Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les romans québécois du début du xxe siècle sont généralement lus dans une perspective endotopique. Le plus souvent, il s’agit de montrer qu’ils confortent une propagande régionaliste/nationaliste qui prône l’enracinement sur le territoire québécois. Cette vulgate s’impose tout particulièrement lorsqu’il est question des romans du terroir. Or, une lecture plus nuancée est-elle possible ? Le présent article tente de répondre à cette question à partir d’un roman au titre particulièrement évocateur : Restons chez nous !, publié en 1908 par Damase Potvin. La lecture traditionnelle considère qu’il s’agit d’un « roman à thèse » qui a servi de « prototype à quelque soixante-dix romans agriculturistes » (DOLQ). Or, l’exotopie qu’on y trouve est-elle forcément réductible à faire valoir la thèse ? Peut-on y relever ce que la théoricienne Susan Rubin Suleiman appelle « les failles » du roman à thèse ? Et le cas échéant, de quoi ces failles sont-elles significatives ?
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".