Speaking Up, Speaking Out, Or Speaking Back: The Signposts Are In The Right Direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This collection of essays offers critical discussions that illuminate some of the power behind playwright Marie Clements’s vision. There are many ways to associate her work with different debates and questions that have animated Canadian literary criticism. Whether her work is linked to larger postcolonial concerns regarding the “coming to voice” of Aboriginal writers, framed within the rising interest and acceptance of Aboriginal theatre that has rocked the country since Highway’s seminal work Rez Sisters, or understood within a larger discourse around feminist writing, these essays suggest there is much interest in both the medium and the message in her work. Clements is also one of many Aboriginal (and postcolonial Canadian) playwrights whose work offers a revision of Canadian narratives predicated on the notion that Canada was “won” by the colonial imperative. Much fruitful discussion can come from understanding Clements's repeated thematic interest in this contentious Canadian history. Whether we understand her artistry as a playwright speaking up, speaking back, or speaking within, her work has the power to engage many scholars using diverse approaches to examine her plays.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".