MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W776078781 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.15.1.8

A Small Life for the Small Screen : On the Cultural Phenomenon of the Sitcom <i>La petite vie</i> and the Critical Failure of the Feature <i>Ding et Dong, le film</i>

2006· article· fr· W776078781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Loiselle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’émission ayant obtenu la plus haute cote d’écoute de l’histoire de la télévision québécoise fut un épisode de la série La petite vie (mars 1995), mettant en vedette Serge Thériault et Claude Meunier dans les rôles de « Moman » et « Popa » Paré. Dans les années 1980, Thériault et Meunier, sous le nom de scène « Ding et Dong », étaient devenus célèbres pour leurs spectacles de cabaret qui incluaient des sketchs avec les personnages de Popa et Moman. Passés à la télévision au cours des années 1990, Popa et Moman sont devenus de véritables phénomènes de société. Pourtant quand Meunier et Thériault tentèrent de transposer leur humour absurde au grand écran, dans Ding et Dong, le film (1990, Alain Chartrand), la critique fut méprisante. Par une analyse culturelle et formelle des spectacles, de la série télévisée et du long métrage, cet article tente d’expliquer le succès extraordinaire de Moman et Popan à la télé et l’échec de Ding et Dong au cinéma.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.129 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207