Prizing Dominance: Disruption, Capital, and the Power and Practices of Literary Prize Culture in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Literary prize culture operates as a niche sphere within the broader field of cultural production; similarly, larger "reading publics" become condensed into specific "prizing publics" around individual prizes.These prizing publics comprise mainly audience members and readers, but also authors, critics, sponsors, jurors, and scholars (among others), all of whom are offered avenues through which to become part of the prizing mechanism.This study describes an implicit "idealized prizing timeline" that dictates the ways in which members of a prizing public may interact with the prize; at a surface level this timeline organizes and manages participation in order to avoid disruption to the prize.Due in part to the largely inflexible nature of this timeline, literary prizes become prone to disruption.However, literary prizes prove difficult to disrupt in a way that meaningfully shifts the purpose, operation, or reception of a prize.As a result, this study identifies disruption as a key piece of the implicit prizing timeline which prizing institutions and organizers often cannily turn to their own use-leveraging scandal, uncooperative members of the prizing public, or organizational missteps into a fortification of their present and future power as well as a fortification of their dominant, consecratory position in the field of cultural production.This project considers three such disruptions in the Canadian literary prize sphere.The first case study considers the disruption of the Giller Prize in 2010 by Gaspereau Press, during which the small press could not produce enough copies of the award-nominated and then awardwinning novel to satisfy the ravenous prizing public, counter to the desires of the Giller; the second case study examines the disruption of Québécois prize le Prix littéraire des collégiens in 2018, during which the prizing public protested and subsequently disrupted the prize's new sponsorship agreement with Amazon, forcing the prize to choose between social approval and To my parents, first and always: for infecting me with curiosity, instilling me with stubbornness, teaching me the importance of an Oxford comma, and sending me money to buy cheese.To Gido, too-the original Dr. Bayrock.You died before I was born, but you didn't have to be here to show me the way.To Babcha, who supported me at key moments: even now I can feel you lifting me and loving me.Thank you.I'm indebted to my comrades in arms who kept me afloat through difficult times.To Ross for never turning down a Jägerbomb; to Meghan for calling on the pests of the house; to Cait and Callie for nights on the back deck and a group chat for rocks; to Todd for a truly excellent Christmas party right before there were no parties anymore; to Carmen and Allie for tacos and ravioli and potato stuffing and hotpot and Costco chicken strips.Most of all, to Ronnie: my most joyful and steadfast and brilliant pack animal.I wouldn't have made it out without you, and I wouldn't have wanted to, anyway.To my supervisor, Dr. Jody Mason, who attached an article on prize culture to the very first email she ever sent me and never stopped.Thank you for gentle shepherding and fortifying Zoom calls, for updates on your skiing co-op and your willingness to read on the train.Thank you to the rest of my committee, for keen eyes
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 | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,041 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».