L’exil, une “deuxième chance” pour Felicia Mihali?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2000, disillusioned with Romania's economic situation, Felicia Mihali moved to Montreal, Quebec. There, in the "belle province", by translating into French books she had published in Romania before leaving, she joined a group of migrant writers that included Émile Ollivier, Dany Laferrière, Naïm Kattan, Ying Chen, Abla Farhoud, Marco Micone, Sergio Kokis and others. Initially, she gave her books a second chance through self-translation, and later adopted French and English as her writing languages. Limiting my contribution to the analysis of three of her novels written in French (La reine et le soldat, Dina and La Bigame), the titles of which explicitly refer to women, I propose to examine how the experience of exile is captured in the journey of characters who cross borders and seek to become accustomed to the habits and customs of their host country. Felicia Mihali's writings often conjure up the image of an exile corresponding to what Janet Paterson (2009: 15-16) calls a "transnational subject", i.e. "an emigrant who has either chosen or been forced to leave his or her country of origin. But [...] s/he rejects the notion of an identity formed on the criteria of race or place of origin, in favour of a complex, shifting identity that is often multicultural and outside the confines of memories". Consequently, by modelling the title of my article on the title of her novel, A Second Chance for Adam, I aim to show that in her novels, exile, experienced in a positive way, represents a second chance, given that the protagonists are characterized by a desire for openness and integration into another geographical, linguistic and cultural space.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".