MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1536745186

Experimental Writing: Jaspreet Singh in Conversation

2007· article· en· W1536745186 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robyn Read, Owen Percy

Notice bibliographique

RevueARIEL · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueNuclear Issues and Defense
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNewspaperConversationGlobeHistoryAffectionMedia studiesMemoirArt historySociologyPsychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Jaspreet Singh grew up in India and Kashmir and moved to Montreal in 1990. He received his PhD in Chemical Engineering from McGill University and worked as research scientist and teacher before moving to writing full time. He has published fiction in Walrus, The Fiddlehead, Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope, and several anthologies of new writing. Seventeen Tomatoes: Tales from Kashmir, his first collection of short fiction, won the 2004 Quebec McAuslan First Book Award. The Montreal Gazette called Singh's debut a haunting fairy tale while the Calgary Herald reported that Seventeen Tomatoes captures the two sides of Kashmir brilliantly. The Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, noted that Singh's stories were steeped in mournful affection for war-scarred land and its peoples. Singh recently finished writing Speak, Oppenheimer, play for Montreal's Infinite Theatre, which imagines conversations between three nuclear physicists and raises questions of nuclear proliferation and apocalypse in post 9/11 world. His new novel is titled Chef: The Book of Early Sorrows. At the time of this interview he was finishing his term as the 2006-2007 Markin-Flanagan Canadian Writer-in-Residence at the University of Calgary. He invited ARIEL into his home in Calgary's Kensington neighbourhood on May 28, 2007. We were wondering if you could speak bit about what brought you to write Seventeen Tomatoes, collection of creative fiction, after completing your doctoral work in chemical engineering. Even before I became an engineer I wanted to become writer. You see the book simply imposed itself on me. It became absolutely necessary to write it down. In Montreal I used to think lot about Kashmir: why this most beautiful part of the world was slipping into more and more violence? What was the gravitational field like at the border? There were million men posted at the India-Pakistan border in battle-ready positions, and there was fear of nuclear annihilation, and I thought there were stories that had to be told. Bertolt Brecht once asked himself: will poems be composed, will stories get written during the dark times? Of course, he answered, there will be poetry and there will be stories, but these fictions will be about the dark times. We would like to talk about your own professional trajectory from chemical engineer--a profession imbued with fact which uses language of fixed or concrete equations leaving less room for what we have come to call subjectivity--to writer--a profession that always operates within series of fluid, mutable and subjective systems of reading, writing, and analysis. Is writing your rebellion against science? Or, conversely, is writing kind of science for you? Well, to me, writing is great laboratory. One has access to unconstrained budget! I would like to differ with your characterization of science. The process of doing science doesn't eliminate subjectivity. In fact, when one is doing work in the sciences, just like in the arts, the creative processes are more or less similar. Of course one reports scientific results differently, in rigorous mathematical language. But ... it can be very nourishing for me to read scientific text when I'm working on story. It can actually stimulate me in the same way that when I used to work as scientist I would read fiction or poetry, or I would watch films which were very stimulating. I'm actually interested in what connects these disciplines. I'm not saying that they are identical--they are different--but I believe that one can certainly nourish the other. The question, in retrospect, was directed more at the material one deals with in each discipline. The tools of each profession. If you are using chemical compound that you know is comprised of certain amount of substance X and certain amount of substance Y, you know what result you will get when you add it to substance Z. In writing, the currency of certain word or language in general seems less predictable. …

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,045
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,152

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0220,014
Communication savante0,0110,014
Science ouverte0,0020,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0450,009

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 Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueARIELMême sujetNuclear Issues and DefenseTravaux en français237 207