MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568351904

Saying Goodbye to Mariposa: Robertson Davies’s Deptford and the Small-Town Convention

2011· article· en· W1568351904 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R. Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsAlgonquin College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchetypeNegotiationConventionConversationSmall townHistorySociologyLiteratureMedia studiesAestheticsArtSocial scienceCommunication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912), Stephen Leacock’s Mariposa is paradigmatic of a type of small-town fiction with which many subsequent texts such as Robertson Davies’s Fifth Business (1970) are in conversation. Davies’s Deptford is simultaneously a product and a rejection of Mariposa’s influence. Through a process of escape and self-discovery, Dunstan Ramsay must negotiate the residue of his Deptford past with his evolving present, and this process helps to reveal how the small-town convention emerges. An initial focus on Dunstan’s sincere attempts at accurately rendering his village enables an exploration of the broader connotations of his explicit knowledge of, temporary reliance on, and eventual abandonment of a small-town archetype epitomized by Mariposa. If Leacock’s town is read as a home place of Canadian fiction and cultural identity, then Fifth Business draws attention to the mode of memory responsible for that type of exegesis. If Mariposa is the past perfect, then Deptford is the past progressive.

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)0.001
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207