Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kit Dobson's book presents itself as a riddle: Transnational Canadas.The adjective insists on movement beyond the nation-state; the noun anchors the adjective in the nation; the pluralizing "s" refracts the phrase as through a prism.Dobson states that the book "recontextutalizes literature written in Canada since the period of cultural nationalism surrounding the 1967 centennial and examines its relationship to global politics as a means of unpacking problems of belonging and subjectivity." 1 He seeks to reveal how cultural production in Canada relates to national and transnational issues of identity, representation, and social change.Transnational Canadas is tightly organized into three parts.The first chapter in each part stakes the theoretical ground, and the next three chapters each consider a focal text.He deploys Marx (by way of Derrida), postcolonial theory and Spivak, and Hardt and Negri.He reads cultural nationalism in Atwood, Dennis Lee's Civil Elegies, and Leonard Cohen's Beautiful Losers.He considers the limits and opportunities of multicultural and indigenous writing in Joy Kogawa's Obasan, Michael Ondaatje's In the Skin of a Lion, and Jeannette Armstrong's Slash.He examines cultural production, identity and (be)longing in Vincent Lam's Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures, Roy Miki's Surrender, and Dionne Brand's What We All Long For.Dobson's inquiry could have attempted a longer reach back to historicize the issues of the nation and the transnational.Earlier writers such as Harold Innis, Howard O'Hagan, and Sara Jeannette Duncan, to name three, interrogated the connections between global capital and Canadian experience, albeit through a white gaze.But that, perhaps, is another book.The heart of Transnational Canadas is the reading and interpretation of the focal texts.Some may see that Dobson's strategy of using nine texts to focalize his analysis skews the conception of writing in Canada (it leaves no room for consideration of environmental writing, or regionality, or formally experimental writing, for example), and his historicization operates to privilege recent writing of resistance; but what he does present is thoughtful.Dobson builds momentum as he goes along, and the discussions in the last half of the book, of Armstrong, Miki, and Brand, are particularly strong.In his reading of Slash, he makes distinctions between indigeneity and multiculturalism, citizenship and community, pushing "readers to recognize the limitations of how the label of Canadian might be applied." 2 The chapter about Brand's novel is the longest in the book, and in it Dobson gives a sustained close reading.Here he is clearly in his element, as issues of identity, urban community, global citizenship, race and radicalization operate in the novel, and open up opportunities for insightful analysis.To ground this analysis, Dobson deftly handles notoriously slippery theoretical texts, effectively digesting key arguments.He carefully presents conclusions without overstatement, and includes contesting views.For example, he does not swallow Hardt and Negri holus-bolus, but
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".