“Sans abri et sans voix” - Trouver un sentiment d’appartenance dans les œuvres d’Antonine Maillet, Herménégilde Chiasson, Patrice Desbiens et Jean-Marc Dalpé “Without a Home and without a Voice” - Finding a Sense of Belonging in the Works of Antonine Maillet Herménégilde Chiasson, Patrice Desbiens and Jean-Marc Dalpé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire étudie la dynamique sociolinguistique de la langue française pour les minorités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick et de l’Ontario, et comment celle-ci influence l’appartenance culturelle par rapport au Québec et au reste du Canada. Se concentrant sur certains ouvrages des auteurs acadiens Antonine Maillet et Herménégilde Chiasson, et des auteurs franco-ontariens Jean-Marc Dalpé et Patrice Desbiens, trois thèmes importants liés à l’appartenance culturelle telle que définie par ces communautés francophones marginalisées seront examinés soit: la mémoire, l’espace et l’exil. Si la question de l’appartenance linguistique des communautés acadiennes et franco-ontariennes est au cœur de ce projet, des concepts tels que la mémoire, l’espace et l'exil illustreront comment s’est créé une identité culturelle complexe et cohésive. This thesis studies the sociolinguistic dynamic of the French language used in francophone minority groups in New Brunswick and Ontario, and how this dynamic influences cultural belonging in relation to Quebec and the rest of Canada. Focusing on various literatures from Acadian authors Antonine Maillet and Hérménigilde Chiasson, and from Franco-Ontarian authors Jean-Marc Dalpé and Patrice Desbiens, three themes were examined that accurately represent cultural belonging as defined by these marginalized francophone communities: memory, space and exile. While linguistic belonging within Acadian and Franco-Ontarien communities is the main purpose of this thesis, concepts such as memory, space and exile will illustrate how the personal narrative of francophone minorities outside Quebec generates a complex and cohesive cultural identity. The objective of this study is to demonstrate how understanding and developing cultural belonging within marginalized groups can lead to a more rounded perspective of one’s own cultural identity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".