A Union of the Inkpot: The Canadian Authors Association, 1921-1960
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation examines the development of authorship in Canada in the first half of the twentieth century, with a particular emphasis on the Canadian Authors Association (C.A.A.).By focusing on this association, the dissertation refutes the common narrative that the development of Canadian authorship was the result of a vanguard of modernist writers standing collectively against an older generation of amateur writers.Instead, it insists on the importance of a history of authorship that includes dissenting conceptions, specifically those articulated by the C.A.A., which resisted the practice of creating hierarchies for authors based on gender, age, quality of work, chosen genre, or professionalism.The development of authorship in the first half of the twentieth century was a site of debate and contestation.From 1921From -1960, there was increasing pressure to define this key role in the national literary field.This pressure to define authorship was manifest: in the legal debates around copyright, which had ramifications for both the state and for private industry; in the debates between authors themselves, as seen during BookWeek , which sought to determine the proper relationship between literature and the marketplace; in the creation and development of the Governor General's Literary Awards , in which the association attempted to promote a specific type of literature; and in the rise of government patronage of the arts, which saw the state developing new ways to both fund and regulate culture.During these various debates over the role of authorship, the C.A.A. generally resisted hierarchies, and in doing so defended the middlebrow and the writer as a skilled labourer in the literary field.The association, however, was not always consistent in advocating these positions.This iii inconsistency demonstrates how difficult it was during this period to articulate a single, coherent definition of authorship.As such, this dissertation argues that literary histories that only recall the modernist narrative of the rise of authorship in Canada lose a sense of this important contest.xii [L]ast month, in the city of Montreal, I saw more than one hundred honest-to-goodness Canadian poets and authors gather together for the purpose of forming a sort of union of the ink-pot.They were there like bees about a syrup-barrel, pen pushers from the western provinces, expatriate novelists from New England, story-tellers from Nova Scotia, magazine-writers from the banana-belt of Ontario, silver-tongued poets from Quinte and Old Quebec, scholars and philosophers from the universities, and even publishers and magazine-makers from the sister-city of Toronto.They were there to get unionized and have walking delegates and grievance-committees after the manner of the plumber and the locomotive-engineer.They were very serious about it all.And as I listened to that solemn talk of theirs it suddenly came home to me that a new age had dawned for Canada.There, before my eyes, she was giving birth to a new profession.She was publicly and officially acknowledging that her authors were a body of men and women to be reckoned with, to be listened to, and perhaps some day even to be legislated for. -Arthur StringerIf there is a necessary first step towards the development of authorship as a profession, it must be acquiring adequate copyright protection.As Mark Rose notes,
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,036 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».