Comparative Cultural Studies and Michael Ondaatje's Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The papers in this volume of the Purdue University Press series of Books in Comparative Cultural Studies represent recent scholarship about Booker Prize Winner Michael Ondaatje's oeuvre by scholars working in English-Canadian literature and culture. Contributors to the volume are Victoria Cook, Mariene Goldman, and Sandeep Sanghera with papers on Anil's Ghost, Beverley Curran, Stephanie M. Hilger, Hsuan Hsu, and Steven Totosy on The English Patient, Gien Lowry and Winfried Siemerling on In the Skin of a Lion, Jon Saklofske on Coming Through Slaughter, and Eluned Summers-Bremner on Ondaatje's poetry. The papers in the volume are followed by a selected bibliography of scholarship about Ondaatje's oeuvre (Steven Totosy), a list of Ondaatje's works, and the bio-profiles of the contributors to the volume. With the objective to render appreciation of both Ondaatje's writing and thought about his writing, the critical work presented in the volume will prove useful to general readers, critics, and scholars alike
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".