MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402408451 · doi:10.1080/17409292.2024.2384775

California Dreamin’ : Trois variations sur le lieu

2024· article· fr· W4402408451 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Gélinas-Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary French and Francophone Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The representation of California in French literature has become increasingly prevalent in the past twenty years. The American West Coast, and particularly the metropolis of Los Angeles, do not conform to an established portrait of the United States centered on New York, Chicago, and the South. This article presents three literary interpretations of California by French authors and puts them in conversation with common preconceptions on the state: its superficiality, its disconnection, its glamor. Laure Murat (Ceci n’est pas une ville, Citation2016), Jean Rolin (Le Ravissement de Britney Spears, Citation2011), and Maylis de Kerangal (Naissance d’un pont, Citation2010) approach Californian spaces and communities through contrasting proximity to their referential truth and for three different narrative aims: Murat composes a meditative autobiography, Rolin an (absurd) spy thriller, and Kerangal a globalized Western. All three confront the “non-spaces” and “blank zones” that define or threaten their narrative environments, looming deserts reputedly hostile to meaning, beauty, and lived experiences. Each author gives particular care to the spatial systems borne of a culture that values diversity, fame, money, and the car.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary French and Francophone StudiesSame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207