Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in the Literary History of Canada almost thirty-five years ago, Alec Lucas \nnoted that "nature writing, particularly the animal story, had its hay-day in the late \nnineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It has long past. Perhaps the literary vein \nhas been worked out" (1965:404). In retrospect, Lucas's epitaph for animal presences \nin Canadian literature may be premature; writing in the same volume, no less a lumi- \nnary than Northrop Frye noted, with no predictions for the genre's demise, "the prev- \nalence in Canada of animal stories, in which animals are closely assimilated to human \nbehaviour and emotions" (343). Indeed, according to Gaile McGregor, any survey of \nthe foundational works of Ernest Thompson Seton and Sir Charles G.D. Roberts and \nthe many animal imaginings offered by recent and contemporary authors reveals that \n"Canadians are fascinated by animals" (1985: 192). Poets as diverse as Layton, Atwood, \nOndaatje, Page, Lane, Acorn, and Nowlan (among others) have written of animals; \nnovelists such as Fred Bodsworth, Sheila Watson, Marian Engel, and Thomas King \nhave all created animal characters of one form or another. The proliferation of an \nincreasingly urbane literature in the Canadian imaginative landscape may bear out \nLucas's prediction for the demise of the animal genre at some future date, but for now \nthe important position of non-human actors in the recent history of the Canadian \nimagination remains intact, a fact that has been further emphasized by the recent crit- \nical and commercial success of Barbara Gowdy's elephant novel, The White Bone.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".