Is Canadian Literature Still “National”? Twenty-First-Century Canadian Literature in Spatial Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rethinking contemporary Anglo-Canadian literature from a spatial perspective suggests that it is not disappearing as a national literature; it is simply changing shape. Henri Lefebvre’s theory of abstract and absolute space developed in The Production of Space (1974) can be used to frame the concept of national literature in spatial terms. As demonstrated through interviews with active players in the publishing industry in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, Canadian literature is being constituted by such diverse forces as the changing nature of bookselling, the internet, and dwindling funding opportunities, all within the context of neoliberal global capitalism. However, these changes have not fragmented Canadian literature to the point of erosion, as Stephen Henighan and others have suggested. Situated within a market- and consumer-driven cultural, political, and economic landscape shaped by localism and globalism more than by 1970s nationalistic fervour, the space of Canadian literature today is simultaneously centralized and decentralized.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".