MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7072322472

« Vous avez bien là dequoy vous contenter les yeux, l'odorat & l'appetit ». Usages, fonctions et enjeux du lexique des perceptions sensorielles dans les récits de voyages français en Amérique (1545-1618)

2023· dissertation· en· W7072322472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeSensibilityRomancePerceptionTravel writingLexicon
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What words should be used to describe the sensations of a “new” world? If there is a literary genre that asks this question, it is that of travel literature. Long before the interest in the sensibility of the romantic traveler of the 19th century, men sought to translate their sensations into narratives that served first as eyewitness accounts. Visual perception has thus been linked to the genres of history and inquiry since antiquity. In the Renaissance, travel literature encompasses the history of the discovery of America, the evolution of medicine and the interest in the body, and, finally, the enrichment of language: literary and scientific discourses are both employed in travel literature, because they are both based on the use of experience and knowledge. This thesis highlights this meeting of disciplines by studying a corpus of nine travel narratives to French America (Canada, Florida, Brazil) from Jacques Cartier's 'Brief recit' (1545) to Marc Lescarbot's 'The history of New France' (1618). The thesis considers the process of lexical creation that applies to a new perception. How to say what is unheard of, what has never been felt? The study of the lexicon of the three senses least studied by critics - taste, smell, and touch - allows us first to consider the links between perceptions and sensations, between what is really experienced, and what the traveler-authors translate into texts. Any sensation is necessarily mediated by language. How then to account for this tension between perceptions, sensations and reality? These first questions reveal the extent to which the subject is at the crossroads of a certain number of disciplines, but the research is resolutely literary. In this thesis a lexical approach is adopted which incorporates historicist analyses of the French language in order to study how Renaissance men perceived their bodies, the vocabulary they used to express sensations, and the way they reported on them in travel accounts. The perspective is also comparative: it seems impossible to study this corpus without placing it in a broader European context. Finally, in an attempt to decentre the history of knowledge, it was also important for us to focus on the indigenous oral tradition: how did the American populations, particularly the First Nations, perceive the arrival of the Europeans? The first part of the thesis considers the linguistic stakes of the reconstitution of perceptions in the texts: what are the terms present in the French language of the 16th century used by the authors? Are the texts of the corpus original on this point when we consider the ways in which these terms had been used beforehand? The second part compares a subjective perceptive discourse with a theory of perception as a mode of access to knowledge. In other words, we examine the link between travel literature and medical and scientific knowledge of the time. Finally, we are interested more broadly in the tensions at work in travel literature between a lived perception, source of authentic representations, and a codified perception, artificially articulated to the need to create a sense of wonder, of the extraordinary and of alterity.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207