Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks over where Korean literature in Canada tried to find their literature’s identity from Lee Seokhyun, Park Chungdo, and Park Minkyu’s reviews. In the earlier times of immigration, Korean literature in Canada could not get out of Korea and Korean literature, so called filiation. The reviews urge Korean literature in Canada to find new affiliation, Canadian literature, instead of Korean literature, filiation. By the way, it is faced with difficulties, like language barrier and power between Canadian mainline literary world, and Korean literary world as ethnic minority’s. Park Chungdo suggested a solution to the problems that was to have Korean Canadian who can speak English help them to create literature in English. But Park Minkyu realized that it was not just a linguistic problem. Because of the power between major white society and minor colored society, he thought, although Korean literature is created in local language, they can’t overcome easily glass ceiling. Anyways, Korean Canadian writers have found literary identity to pursue as a subcategory by getting out of Korean literature gradually. But is that desirable? Canada has a mosaic society, a multicultural society which ethnically, linguistically, and culturally diverse people live in harmony keeping their uniqueness. Therefore, they need harmony more between filiation and affiliation than cutting off with filiation. Especially, to make a mosaic society, complete cutting off with filiation is not desirable. Because many races in Canada should have their own uniqueness. Korean Canadians have already twofold identities. That is, they belong to two countries, Korea and Canada, but they can’t belong to the mainstream of any nation. From a marginal man’s position which Korean Canadians have, they can embody the problems that they can’t create works in Korean diaspora’s life, and consolidation and assimilation of two cultures. I think it is the direction of identity that Korean literature in Canada should pursue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.037 |
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".