Arranging the Self : Literary and Archival Perspectives on Writers’ Archives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a small exploratory research project undertaken by the authors on the archives of three well-known Canadian writers − L.M. Montgomery, Marian Engel, and Alice Munro – for the purpose of assessing whether and to what extent we can know writers – their character and intentions – through their archives. The three writers’ archives were examined through two interpretive frameworks: the archival principles of arrangement and the literature on life writing. The authors found that the capacity of a writer’s archive to reveal character and intention, inevitably, is constrained by the writer’s own efforts to conceal and edit the self, and by the imposition of intentions of persons other than the writer on the archive. RESUME Ce texte rend compte d’un petit projet de recherche exploratoire que les auteures ont mene en examinant les fonds d’archives de trois ecrivaines canadiennes bien connues – L. M. Montgomery, Marian Engel et Alice Munro – afin de determiner s’il est possible de connaitre les ecrivaines, leurs personnalites et leurs intentions, a partir de leurs archives, et si oui, dans quelle mesure. Les auteures ont examine les archives des trois ecrivaines en se servant de deux cadres d’interpretation : les principes archivistiques du classement et les textes theoriques portant sur le recit de vie. Les auteures ont conclu que la possibilite qu’un fonds d’archives d’ecrivain revele la personnalite et l’intention de l’auteur est inevitablement contrainte a la fois par les efforts memes de l’ecrivain pour cacher ou reviser sa vie et par l’intervention de d’autres personnes qui peuvent imposer leur propre intention sur le fonds d’archives.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".