MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484790982

Tracing the Web: House of Anansi’s Spiderline Editions

2000· article· en· W1484790982 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stephen Cain

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingEnthusiasmArt historyWhite (mutation)PatriotismTypefaceHistoryTypographyPerformance artArtLiteratureVisual artsClassicsLawPoliticsPhilosophyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Established in 1969, the House of Anansi Press's Spiderline series represents a unique moment in Canadian publishing history. At no time previously had a Canadian publisher attempted to release the work of so many unknown and untried novelists simultaneously and also emphasize the fact that these were first, and perhaps not perfect, novels. Anansi's goals for the Spiderline series were to let new voices be heard, to give first-time novelists a chance at publication, and to get it done quickly by producing each of the Spiderlines with the same Spartan cover and identical typeface. All of the first five writers published — Peter Such, Russell Marois, Matt Cohen, John Sandman, and Pierre Gravel — were white, male, and no older than thirty. With its diverse collection of authors, experimental styles, and youthful enthusiasm for the new, the local, and the bilingual the original Spiderline books were the vision of Dennis Lee and David Godfrey at a time of great patriotism and literary expansion. The decision to reintroduce the Spiderline series in the late 1990s can be viewed as an attempt to regain Anansi's earlier status as a progressive and unique publishing enterprise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207