S.S. Van Dine revisité : étude et subversion des règles constitutives du genre policier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire de création comporte deux parties. La première partie, théorique, revisitera les règles canoniques de S.S. Van Dine afin de démontrer comment elles ont pu stimuler l'évolution du genre. En nous inspirant de deux théories adverses, c'est-à-dire celle de Tzvetan Todorov qui soutient que le roman policier ne doit pas prétendre à la littérature et celle de Marc Lits qui tente de démontrer que le genre policier peut rivaliser avec des textes littéraires, nous allons faire ressortir les principales caractéristiques du genre pour mieux expliquer les changements qu'elles ont connus à la suite de la formulation des règles de Van Dine. La seconde partie de ce mémoire consiste en un atelier de création composé de manière à créer un écart esthétique et un bris délibéré de l'horizon d'attente, par la subversion des règles de Van Dine, principes dont nous aurons longuement débattu dans la première partie.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".