MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W803316907 · doi:10.71781/21865

D’un didactisme à l’autre : étude sociocritique du roman québécois pour adolescents (1980-2000)

2011· dissertation· fr· W803316907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2011
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alors que la critique soutient souvent que le didactisme dans la littérature québécoise pour la jeunesse est chose du passé, l’analyse sociocritique, dans le présent mémoire, de plusieurs romans pour adolescents publiés après 1980 montre plutôt qu’il y subsiste et que les thèmes (conflits entre parents et adolescents, famille, sexualité) et les formes (narration ou focalisation à partir du point de vue de personnages adolescents) souvent invoqués par la critique pour prouver sa disparition constituent précisément les dimensions d’un didactisme d’un nouveau genre. Les personnages adolescents des romans analysés proposent des portraits de parents, des jugements sur des modèles familiaux et des citations de conseils sur la sexualité qui peuvent tous être considérés comme des stratégies didactiques. En plus de mettre de l’avant certaines valeurs, ces discours tenus par les adolescents constituent un métadidactisme qui réinscrit dans les œuvres elles-mêmes la relation, qui est au cœur même de la définition de la littérature jeunesse, entre un adulte détenteur de savoir et un jeune considéré comme un être en formation.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts→French-language works237,207→