Paul, <i>alter ego</i> de Rabagliati… et des Québécoises et Québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est difficile de le démontrer objectivement, mais on peut avancer, sans trop risquer de se tromper, que la série Paul est sans doute l’oeuvre la plus marquante de l’histoire de la bande dessinée québécoise. Dans mon article, je m’efforcerai d’identifier et d’expliciter les raisons de ce succès. En particulier, je montrerai que, au-delà des qualités narratives et graphiques de la série signée par Michel Rabagliati, celle-ci comporte des aspects qui opèrent sur un plan subjectif, émotif : le choix du genre autofictionnel, la transparence du bédéiste, sa sensibilité, sa stupéfiante capacité de recréer le passé (personnel aussi bien que collectif), l’ancrage géographique et historique, la justesse de la langue, la proximité pour les lectrices et les lecteurs des enjeux dramatiques. Je présenterai tous ces aspects, qui concourent à ce qu’on se sente interpelé et qu’on s’y reconnaisse, ainsi que des aspects plus techniques, tels que le style de dessin très graphique, qui confère au héros un visage schématique qui agit tel un masque, sur lequel tout lecteur ou toute lectrice peut projeter son propre visage. Paul, c’est beaucoup Rabagliati… et c’est un peu chacun de nous.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".