La littérature comparée en décalage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour son premier colloque à l’extérieur du Congrès de la fédération des sciences humaines, l’Association canadienne de littérature comparée (ACLC-CCLA) propose de penser le décalage, qu’il soit institutionnel, temporel ou spatial, que permet le comparatisme. In 2025, we are bringing our annual Canadian Comparative Literature Association to Trent University, in PeterboroughNogojiwanong, dedicating three days to sharing our work and our thoughts on our often off-kilter positionality in (and out of) academia. The precarious balancing act of comparison entails a constant movement on the part of the researcher/teacher/creator, a movement that does not settle well within the institutional structures of the article, the grant proposal, the course, the conference. This event will be an opportunity to revel in the cracks, the bugs, une occasion de rajouter du sable dans l’engrenage ; non seulement en pointant les failles mais surtout en mettant en œuvre les décalages, accrochages, jeux et autres bogues. Dans la lignée du féminiSpunk conçu par Aventin comme « une extermination des normes et des pouvoirs […] qui s’offre telle une envie contagieuse – une invitation totale et permanente au plus jouissif des fuck off » (Aventin 25)1 et de l’éloge du bug de Vitali-Rosati,2 nous proposons de penser le comparatisme comme ce qui détourne le « bon fonctionnement » de la machine (académique; capitaliste), and to conceive this event as a playground on which marginal practices, thoughts, works and formats can form revolutionary friendship
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 | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.008 |
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".