Ringuet et DesRochers au programme: étude comparée de cinq ouvrages didactiques de littérature québécoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the new role that Quebec literature textbooks and anthologies play following the Robillard education reform in 1993. In order to do so, we adopted a hybrid methodology that combines the concepts from the literary institution theory, the sociology of books and publishing, and from the reception theory.Following a brief reminder of the definition of literary anthology , we present the reform's main guidelines concerning the teaching of Quebec literature. We then propose a study of its key issues, before briefly presenting our two studied works. A macro analysis of the textbooks, their structure and the introductions to the authors precedes the exposition of the didactic presentation of the selected literary works. This part of the memoir is then dedicated to the micro analysis of the two major works whose literary categorisation remains problematic; Ringuet's novel Trente Arpents, and Alfred DesRochers' poetry collection À l'Ombre de l'Orford. We are led to observe that the institutional influence mainly leads to the valorisation of textbooks proposing a structuralist view of literature, in which a quick categorisation of the works allows little room for nuances. This then leads us to identify the tensions inherent to didactic literary works linked to the reform, namely the tensions between- the complex nature of literature and the technical, normative and biased approach advised by the reform;- the desire to offer an exhaustive historical overview of literature versus an intensified focus put on works written in the second part of the 20th century, as required by the new program.At the end of this study, we are called to redefine both the anthology and the textbook. This leads us to distinguish in terms of their respective goals between the anthology dedicated to the teaching of literature and the literary textbook.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".