Tricks with "a Sad Ring": The Endings of Alice Munro’s "The Ottawa Valley"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1981 interview with J.R. (Tim) Struthers, Alice Munro says that stories in Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You are nearly all holding-pattern stories, except for ... 'The Ottawa Valley,' and that was big turning-point story. Later she modifies that opinion (scratch that holding-patterns business), saying, truth is, one becomes very dissatisfied with everything. When Struthers notes the importance of such dissatisfaction, Munro agrees: It's in 'The Ottawa Valley,' I believe. The last paragraph in this book all about with art (28). That commentary raises several important questions. If the inadequacy of her representation of real lives matters, then how can she maintain (in the same interview) that those who dispute her accuracy demonstrate a total confusion about what fiction is (33)? And why does she say that the conclusion of Ottawa Valley deals with general dissatisfaction with art when it actually makes different point? The answers to these questions involve autobiographical connections: as Munro states in her Paris Review interview, material about my mother my central material in life (Art 237), and therefore the ending of Ottawa Valley does express dissatisfaction with art. For her, the writer must be free to use bits of what real, however presumptuous that sounds. Munro's commentaries tend to divert attention from the painfully vivid memories that give her work its force in favour of less volatile metafictional issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".