Cult Author versus Literary Celebrity: Commentary of and on Janet Frame and Margaret Atwood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Cult Author versus Literary Celebrity: Commentary of and on Janet Frame and Margaret Atwood' is a comparative exploration of authorial commentary and the critical interaction with that commentary. The mythology that surrounds an author is a powerful force. It can affect and inform critical interpretations of their fiction. The way that authors participate in and attempt to shape their mythologies therefore has implications for the body of literary criticism that attaches to their work. This meta-critical study charts the nature and magnitude of the commentary produced by New Zealand author Janet Frame and Canadian author Margaret Atwood. It aims to investigate how each author has intervened as an active agent to mould the mythological discourse that surrounds them, and to examine the effect of each author's commentary by ascertaining where it has influenced overarching critical narratives of their work. The use of the authors' commentary as a critical tool is canvassed, as is critical reaction to the personae each author projects through their commentary.
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 | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".