MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405200867 · doi:10.26522/vp.v21i2.4902

Du bazar au palais du raja : bijoux et costumes d’Orient chez Harriet Murray-Aynsley et Marie de Ujfalvy-Bourdon

2024· article· fr· W4405200867 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Sudres

Bibliographic record

VenueVoix Plurielles · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article examine les récits de voyage et les collections de la voyageuse britannique Harriet Murray-Aynsley et française Marie de Ujfalvy-Bourdon dont les parcours se sont croisés dans l’Inde et l’Himalaya dans la dernière décennie du dix-neuvième siècle. À travers l’étude des enjeux du female gaze dans la représentation de l’Oriental.e dans les scènes traditionnelles de visites aux bazars, les descriptions des harems et zenanas et les visites aux ranis, il s’agira de se demander si les bijoux et vêtements tels qu’ils sont racontés par les voyageuses et rapportés en Europe, permettent de défaire l’Orient fantasmé des hommes, ou s’ils sont pris dans les mêmes schémas d’interprétation et de représentation stéréotypés. En interrogeant la catégorie du genre, il est possible de mettre en évidence une narration de soi et des autres qui obéit à des contraintes de production et de réception du récit féminin, et dessine les contours d’un orientalisme alternatif au discours dominant. La comparaison nationale révèle néanmoins que les enjeux de collecte et de discours sur les objets font pleinement entrer les représentations des voyageuses dans la rhétorique du discours colonialiste et impérialiste.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 venueVoix PluriellesSame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207