MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161963946 · doi:10.82308/11830

Représentation de la bibliothèque chez Bessette et Poulin

2004· dissertation· en· W7161963946 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Corina Crainic

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Key (lock)Style (visual arts)CriticismCore (optical fiber)Hoarding (animal behavior)Point (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On examining novels written in Quebec after the 1950s, surprisingly some common themes emerge. One finds progressively increasing references to the themes of the book, the library, and the author. In this thesis, we study the fictional work of Gerard Bessette and Jacques Poulin, two authors who make abundant references to the universe of the book. Their characters read, write, work and even live in libraries and bookshops. We will discuss the concept of the library, in order to clarify various key issues. Our definition of the library will include any place where books are read or stored. In other words, we do not intend to limit our study only to the traditional library, but rather to extend it to any place which shelters books. The concept of the library is thus taken in its broadest definition and includes the bookshop, the office, or even the bus. These books were selected because each author gives an account of contemporary Quebec history. In addition, the opposing themes in these fictitious worlds, seem to be at the core of the concept of the library. Indeed, it is at the same time both closedness and openness, both hoarding and lending. We will examine how the paradoxical realities are presented in these novels.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0210.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiterature and Culture Studies→French-language works237,207→