Qu'est-ce que l'interdisciplinarité? : du comparatisme à l'épistémocritique dans le discours littéraire canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose to show that the emergency of new paradigms (cognitive sciences) and the dispensing with gap between the human and the natural sciences imply a radical change in our conception of literary theory. To clarify the nature of this change, as a starting point, we refer to the context of cognitive sciences as a confluence of many disciplines. We will focus on the question of the utility of this notion in the domain of the literature. Next we examine the concept of the interdisciplinarity in the tendencies properly characterizing the Canadian discourse of theory of literature. Firstly, we consider some epistemological questions conceming the distinction between the scientific object and the object of scientific knowledge. The latter imposes the task of probing into the relation between man, life and society, depending on whether the act ofknowing is biological, historical, logical, social, cultural and - why not ? - literary. Secondly, we highlight some Canadian methodological tendencies far cognitivizing literature.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".