Paroles d’arbres. Histoires de jardins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issu des travaux réalisés dans le cadre du groupe de recherche «L’imaginaire botanique» (CRSH–R. Bouvet et S. Posthumus), ce cahier ReMix rassemble des articles ayant d’abord fait l’objet de communications lors d’un colloque à Gatineau en mai 2019 dans le cadre du congrès de l’ACFAS. Après un séminaire sur le thème du jardin (UQAM 2019-2020), après plusieurs mois de flâneries axées sur le thème des arbres et organisées par Chloë Rolland et Claudette Lemay dans le cadre de La Traversée-Atelier de géopoétique, nous avons choisi d’explorer les liens entre l’arbre, le jardin et l’intime. Les articles suivants adoptent des perspectives croisées, celles de la littérature, de l’histoire des forêts, du mythe édénique, de la création, qu’il s’agisse de l’écriture ou du jeu vidéo. Ils interrogent le rôle du végétal dans le texte littéraire en termes de métaphore, d’agent principal, de marginalité, d’éveil écologique, de résilience face à la vieillesse.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".