MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131390077 · doi:10.7202/1123553ar

L’Association d’écriture Trois-Frontières : institutionnalisation littéraire et débats référentiels acadiens et madawaskayens en milieu régional, 1982-1996

2025· article· fr· W7131390077 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Philippe Volpé

Bibliographic record

VenueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelle · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Green paperGeneral interest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des décennies 1970-1990, la région du Madawaska, au nord-ouest du Nouveau-Brunswick, assiste à un important essor littéraire, auquel ont largement contribué les membres de l’Association d’écriture Trois-Frontières (AETF) et les maisons d’édition Lavigne, Marévie et Quatre Saisons. Prenant racine dans le contexte de tensions identitaires qu’enveniment les projets touristiques, notamment ceux qui insistent sur le caractère « distinct » et « exclusif » de la région aux fins lucratives de la Foire brayonne (1979-2019), les autrices et les auteurs de ce réseau produisent une littérature du quotidien, qui fait peu de cas de ces querelles entre Acadien·nes et Brayon·nes du Madawaska, esquissant plutôt une référence alternative, plus consensuelle, autour de l’expérience de la vie frontalière. Par l’étude des activités des membres de l’AETF et des oeuvres publiées par les trois maisons d’édition autour desquelles ils gravitent, cet article propose une analyse des contributions et du développement d’un réseau littéraire acadien méconnu, excentré du centre monctonien, mais non moins constitutif de l’histoire de la littérature acadienne.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelleSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207