MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492339938

Teaching Margaret Laurence's The Diviners as a Postcolonial Text

2007· article· fr· W1492339938 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gillian Siddall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Children's Literature / Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesse · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisHumanitiesIdentity (music)FeminismNousSociologyEthnologyPoliticsPostcolonialism (international relations)Gender studiesAnthropologyHistoryArtPolitical scienceAestheticsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume: Cet article propose une lecture du roman The Diviners de Margaret Laurence qui priviliegie les elements qui font de ce recit un exemple ideal pour aborder en classe les questions fondamentales du postcolonialisme: la definition de l'identite canadienne dans un milieu multiculturel, la denonciation des partis pris de l'histoire traditionnelle, la volonte de reviser l'histoire du Canada et l'exploration des liens entre le feminisme, la conscience des classes sociales et l'ideologie postcolonialiste. Summary: This paper offers a reading of Margaret Laurence's The Diviners that highlights its potential as a basis for classroom discussions of issues central to postcolonial theory: the definition of Canadian identity in a multicultural classroom; the biases of traditional Canadian history; the movement towards rethinking and rewriting Canadian history; and the links between feminism, class, and postcolonialism. The Diviners illustrates the extent to which Canadian history has been fictionalized but has become regarded as truth. The novel re-imagines Canadian history and uses multiple perspectives--and consequently multiple narratives--to create a space for those who have previously been denied creative/political power, namely the Metis, the working classes, and women.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Children's Literature / Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesseSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207