MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979937423 · doi:10.1353/ces.0.0004

Becoming the Hyphen: The Evolution of English-Language Ukrainian-Canadian Literature

2007· article· fr· W1979937423 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lindy Ledohowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian ethnic studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianHistoryLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article explore l’évolution de la littérature canadienne ukrainienne écrite en anglais au cours des dernières cinquante années. ll s’agit d’abord de souligner que cette littérature postule le sens d’une ethnicité multiple comme faisant partie d’une sous-classe marginalisée de Canadiens. Je montre qu’après les années 1980, la représentation de l’ethnicité s’est modifiée à partir d’éléments identifiables comme ukrainiens. Je m’appuie en premier lieu sur une analyse de la littérature d’avant cette période, par Vera Lysenko, Maara Haas, George Ryga et Andrew Suknaski en opposition au œuvres publiées après 1980 par Haas, Ryga et Suknaski. Ensuite, j’inclue une analyse d’autres auteurs post-1980 pour montrer comment la représentation de l’ethnicité s’éloigne alors d’un critère non-différencié et basé sur la classe sociale, vers une codification de l’ukrainité comme un caractère spécifique ethnique orienté vers la nation. Je conclue en attribuant cette mutation à l’attention portée à la théorie grandissante du multiculturalisme canadien. Bien que mon analyse se concentre sur la littérature canadienne ukrainienne, la dynamique étudiée ici est commune aux autres littératures ethniques au Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0220.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian ethnic studiesSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207