MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1535328641 · doi:10.1353/tsw.2007.a220825

Treason Our Text: A Preposthumous View

2007· article· en· W1535328641 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lillian S. Robinson, Douglas Michael Massing

Notice bibliographique

RevueTulsa Studies in Women s Literature · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePoetry Analysis and Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPunctuationNephew and nieceContext (archaeology)SociologyLiteraturePsychologyHistoryArtPhilosophyLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Treason Our Text:A Preposthumous View Lillian S. Robinson (bio) and Douglas Michael Massing (bio) This essay is unfinished because it was composed by Lillian S. Robinson as she was in the palliative care unit, struggling through the final stages of ovarian cancer. Douglas Michael Massing, her friend and former assistant, helped Robinson as she worked on this project from her hospital bed, and he arranged the results of her composition into the text below. The text comprises Robinson's own words, and she orally approved a draft of it that was read back to her, although with the hope that she could continue to work on what she saw as an essay in progress. Massing wrote the endnotes and afterword, which provide some clarification and context. I have edited it very lightly, making a few changes in paragraphing, dividing some long sentences into two, and correcting some punctuation. My goal was to correct errors and to translate what had been composed in an oral format into the medium of print, while interfering as little as possible with Robinson's voice. In making these changes I have consulted with Massing and with Lillian Robinson's nephew and literary executor, Greg Robinson, Associate Professor of History, Université du Québec À Montréal. I thank them both for entrusting Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature with Lillian's last publication, and I hope the following text does indeed convey what she wanted to say. Laura M. Stevens "Treason Our Text: Feminist Challenges to the Literary Canon," begins the exploration of a position on canonizing: how we go about thinking about the literary canon. It is an "outsider's" way of looking at the canon, which first brings in the issue of class, then complicates it with questions of race and sexuality.1 Over the years, it has become the most anthologized and cited of my works: some dozen reprints are known, including translations into Spanish and Hungarian.2 I think the reason it became sort of the piece on this subject—ironically—is that it's written for an elite academic audience and its quotations come from the canon. So the definition of the canon as nonelitist comes through language that is elite. I was at the University of Tulsa for a semester teaching one course on this material, which had been solicited for a canons issue of Critical Inquiry, but when I wrote and submitted an article, they turned it down. Shari Benstock, then the editor of Tulsa Studies, asked if I had anything on the canon and was [End Page 23] handed this (and I think would have used whatever it was).3 So it became a defining piece for what Tulsa Studies was: a way of taking their mission into more recent material and stuff not solely confined to gender issues but rather the interaction between gender and other categories, as I had been exploring in Sex, Class, and Culture.4 "Treason Our Text" was followed three years later by "Is There Class in This Text?" my review of Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar's The Norton Anthology of Women's Literature.5 It struck a chord in part because people, particularly women of Hispanic origin, were raising the same questions as they developed a growing body of English-language material on the Hispanic experience that was signaling a change in the discourse on women's literature. My piece that continued where "Is There Class in This Text?" left off, "The Queens' Necklace," further developed that discourse.6 My present sense is, however, an ironic one, that this series of pieces became a source of that discourse in part because it was done in a very literary way through basically the joke, the play on words, on the canon. It started with "Canon Fathers and Myth Universe" and increasingly over the years developed that play on words from earlier tropes of struggle—"Treason Our Text," "Feminist Criticism: How Do We Know When We've Won?"—to such titles as "Their Canon, Our Arsenal" and eventually [to] my collection of essays in this area, In the Canon's Mouth.7 This wordplay of course invokes the power of words...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,788
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,775

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTulsa Studies in Women s LiteratureMême sujetPoetry Analysis and CriticismTravaux en français237 207