MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7039131020

La rhétorique épidictique de François Rabelais

2003· other· en· W7039131020 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricPraiseContradictionRhetorical questionCriticismStyle (visual arts)PoeticsPerspective (graphical)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study participates in a tendency of Rabelaisian criticism to consider the Pantagruelian text as a weaving of borrowed forms which rcho surrounding discourses. On thrse grounds, we argue that epideictic rloquence, which comprises praise and blame, forms up a network of recognisable passages. This corpus, which, frora the Gargantua to the Quart Livre, brings together pieces eclectic as much in claim as in structure, is tackled from a generic perspective and analysed in light of their common rhetorical components: dispositio, elocutio and inventio. In accordance with the aesthetic of imitation, which informs the making of texts in the Renaissance, Rabelais recasts models available from his predecessors. However, these textual reshufflings, whether it be a matter of early XVIth Century literary compositions or rehabilitated classical works, is effected through parody. But while the re-evaluation through laughter, in the cases of the Gargantua and the Pantagruel, concerns the occasional poetry of the rhetoriqueurs, parody is brought about within the genre itself in the Tiers and Quart Livres, which comprise paradoxical encomia only. Our interest here is in the modes of parody and the conditions for the provoking of laughter in which can be seen the will to reinvigorate a genre, which had by then become strictly codified. From the first two books to the last a certain way of thinking is being established. With conceptual space allowing such great breadth, the paradoxical encomium introduces into epideictic rhetoric contradiction and equivocation, thereby freeing that genre from its formal constraints. This propensity to paradox is significant for the rhetoric of praise and the textual representation of man. And yet, it is through the parody of the epideictic genre and the often grotesque figures it engenders, that Rabelais participates in the oratory genre, - an anthropology indeed, and, as such, a tool to conceive of man - which conveys the highest conception of the human.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.001
GPT teacher head0.121
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicFault Detection and Control Systems→French-language works237,207→