The Sensations of the 1920s: Martha Ostenso’s Wild Geese and Mazo de la Roche’s Jalna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martha Ostenso's Wild Geese and Mazo de la Roche's Jalna were both prize-winning, wildly successful novels, in the United States as well as in Canada, but each received a rather different critical response in this country. Jalna's suggestive anti-Americanism and its explicit British loyalism was evidently to be preferred over Wild Geese's more ambiguously North American (as opposed to what was then considered distinctly Canadian) aesthetic. This is despite its easy fit into T.D. Maclulich's classification as a Canadian 'Northern' fiction (a tradition which includes Frederick Philip Grove, Ernest Buckler, Sinclair Ross, and others). As well, the intense and often violent eroticism of Ostenso's novel was more difficult for critics of the 1920s to tolerate than was the coy sexiness of Jalna. Although little critical attention has been paid to either author in recent years, Ostenso's literary reputation appears to have surpassed de la Roche's.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".