Bibliographic record
Abstract
These notes report on the title and text of a short paper given at a round table organized by CRILCQ (Centre de recherch interuniversitaire sur la littrature et la culture qubcoise) at the conference of the American Council for Quebec Studies held in Quebec, 19 November 2004. The question of postcolonialism in Quebec had recently been examined by Vincent Desroches in a special dossier on Quebec and Postcolonialism in the journal Quebec Studies, no. 35, Spring-Summer 2003. However, all those taking part in the round table expressed a certain degree of reticence over the use of the concept in Qubcois literature. One of them, Rjean Beaudoin, subsequently published his point of view in an article entitled Is Qubcois literature postcolonial? His conclusion read: Qubcois literature can take on the ghosts of its dual colonialism. Putting it in the postcolonial ragbag is a desperate attempt to normalise it' (L'Inconvnient, no. 24, February 2006). Also worth reading on the subject are Rachel Killick's article, In the fold? Postcolonialism and Quebec, Romance Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, November 2006, pp. 18192, and the collection entitled Reconfigurations. Canadian Literature and Postcolonial Identities/Littratures canadiennes et identits postcoloniales, edited by Marc Maufort and Franco Bellarsi, Bruxelles, Peter Lang, 2002.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".