Bibliographic record
Abstract
As early as 1968, Atwood's poetry was catching the attention of literary critics such as W. H. New (who later became editor of Canadian Literature ), though in an early survey of Canadian literature, she merited only a footnote. By the early 1970s, however, her poetry was featuring more prominently in reviews of Canadian literature, and, by the middle point of that decade, her novels had begun to receive sustained attention, too, and she was the subject of a special edition of The Malahat Review , a prominent Canadian literary journal. From the first, critics have been interested in her depictions of female bodies and quests, power and gender politics, and her use of language. Carol P. Christ, for example, examined Surfacing as a spiritual quest only a few years after the novel was published. Atwood herself gave ‘A Reply’ to critics, including Christ, who were exploring Surfacing in an early volume of the feminist journal Signs , setting out her by now familiar views that literature is literature, not a treatise, and not a direct reflection of reality. However, her work has been consistently seen as referring to the world around her, whether that world is specifically associated with Canada, or whether it is more concerned with contemporary gender relations or with other political positions. 1970s and 1980s What becomes obvious very quickly in reviewing the criticism on Atwood is the fact that the majority of Atwood scholars take a feminist approach, and this might be in part because she began writing at a time of raised feminist consciousness.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.024 |
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".