Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This book is The ProdUcT of nearly two decades of reading and research, taking and teaching courses on the literatures of Canada, and a coast-to-coast journey to visit twenty-eight university literature departments and interview nearly one hundred professors. 1 Much of the formal research for this book began with that exploratory trip in 1997-98 and became a core part of my 2001 PhD dissertation.That text, however, was only an intermediary point to this revised and expanded volume.On its own, the dissertation provided an important snapshot of what I found on my trip and my observations of how the shapes and functions of courses on our literatures are inextricably linked with our literary histories and institutions.The data I gathered in 1997-98 is a valuable historical record in itself, for no one else has ever made an effort to assemble such information in so complete a way.As I demonstrate in Chapters Three and Four of this book, the course data and interviews from that year reveal a tremendous amount of information about what we teach, how we teach, and why we teach the courses that we do.Looking at that snapshot of our field in isolation, however, can only tell us so much, which is why I have not published the results of that initial research until now.Incorporating, as I do in Chapter Five, corresponding data from a full decade later enriches our understanding of that first data set significantly.It is only when we have an understanding of Chapter Four, many professors during that era struggled with the challenge of fitting in newer and more diverse works within the course and department structures that had been in place for some time.The challenge of removing "classic" works that had been on the syllabus for years in order to make room for newer and in some cases "unproven" works was a dilemma that professors raised with me again and again.tional questions that, conveniently, remain unasked.This book asks, what happens to our understanding of the complexity of Canada as a site of literary production when we confine its study to university departments organized (and deeply compromised) by the premises of Romantic nationalism that were so fundamental in their founding?In other words, to paraphrase John Willinsky, how has the history that continues, as it did in the nineteenth century, to reflect "a considerable sense that Canada was a unilingually anglophone country, in which francophone culture was a minor phenomenon, something like Welsh in Britain" (Davey, "'and Quebec'" 10).In other ways, however, the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of the authors whose texts are included in both English and French courses on the literatures of Canada indicate that the parameters of our fields have also expanded since the early 1970s.As many professors who began their careers during
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 | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,093 | 0,075 |
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 ».