MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161964971 · doi:10.82308/44613

La pluralité des points de vue dans "Les fous de Bassan" d'Anne Hébert, "Les derniers jours de Smokey Nelson" de Catherine Mavrikakis et "Les sangs" d'Audrée Wilhelmy

2019· dissertation· fr· W7161964971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Myriam Vincent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)Representation (politics)Interpretation (philosophy)Character (mathematics)NarrativeMeaning (existential)Point (geometry)Element (criminal law)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The plurality of points of view is a narrative technique used very frequently in contemporary quebecois literature. It allows for a plot, an event or a character to be represented from diverse sensibilities and experiences. In this thesis, we study the plurality of points of view when it revolves around one same "core", meaning a common element that all focal characters share. In order to do this, we examine three novels that employ this process : Les fous de Bassan, written by Anne Hébert (of which the core is an event : the murder of the Atkins cousins), Les derniers jours de Smokey Nelson, written by Catherine Mavrikakis (of which the core is also an event : the murder committed by Smokey Nelson and his impending execution) and Les sangs, written by Audrée Wilhelmy (of which the core is a character : Féléor Barthélémy Rü). This analysis allows us to show the role of the plurality of points of view in the construction of the story, the reader's interpretation and the representation of the heterogeneity of experience. It also shows how the plurality of points of view manages to simplify and complexify the story at the same time ; it simplifies it by designating the core of the story unambiguously and by giving the reader all the necessary information to resolve the intrigue, and it complexifies it by giving the reader a plethora of information about different elements of the story, including the core, that sometimes contradict each other, which forces the reader into an active and complex interpretative work.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFrench Literature and Critical TheoryFrench-language works237,207