MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487644435 · doi:10.3138/jcs.42.3.150

Inside and Outside the Hyena’s Belly: Nega Mezlekia and the Politics of Time and Authorship

2008· article· en· W1487644435 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sabine Milz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemoirNarrativePoliticsHistoryLiteratureStorytellingSociologyLawArt historyArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After first-time author Nega Mezlekia won the Governor General’s Award for non-fiction with his memoir Notes from the Hyena’s Belly: Memories of My Ethiopian Childhood, Anne Stone, an established Canadian writer, came out in the media with the claim that she had written all but 20 pages of the draft that went to Mezlekia’s publisher. This essay examines the authorship controversy that followed these allegations by teasing out the politics of time and authorship that underlie the controversy and textual level of Mezlekia’s memoir. It shows that the textual and extratextual dimensions of the memoir are loci of isochronic and allochronic forces that co-exist and clash on highly uneven terms in the contact zones of authorship, narrative form, textual narrative, and copyright. While this essay focusses on a specific case, its objective transcends this specificity in that it explores the positive potential of allochronic time as a force that complicates the modern legal and cultural notions of the imprinted author, of the space- and time-independent nature of print, and of an isochronic world in which everything happens at the same universal intervals of time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.029
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207