MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594917282 · doi:10.29173/md22015

“We Are Text”: Reading, Dwelling and Narrative Identity in Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient and Divisadero

2014· article· en· W1594917282 on OpenAlex
Thomas Stephan Christianson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueMultilingual Discourses · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Cinema and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntertextualityReading (process)NarrativeIdentity (music)Representation (politics)LiteratureLinguisticsPsychologyPoliticsArtAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outlining two ways of thinking about the relationship between speaking and writing—one which holds speech as anterior and superior to writing, which it sees as a secondary system of representation, and the other which views speech as being a form of writing itself operating within the play of difference and deferral that is language as such; the essay suggests that the two novels in question propose a third position that contains elements of both the previous two. This position is captured in key instances in both The English Patient and Divisadero of the written word being read out loud in a communal setting. In view of Lucien and Marie-Neige’s and Hana and the English patient’s practice of reading out loud to each other, Divisaderoand The English Patientsuggest that reading—whether it be studious, curious, or otherwise escapist in nature—is a vital act of incorporation, a political act of consumption wherein words become flesh and the stories in books come into confrontation with the texts of our selves in an explosion of intertextuality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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