Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose un aperçu d'une recherche qui se veut exhaustive sur la réception anglo-canadienne de la littérature québécoise et aborde certaines des questions théoriques que soulève cette problématique. Existe-t-il un canon de la littérature québécoise spécifique au Canada anglais et peut-on observer des écarts significatifs sur le plan de la lecture critique? Compte tenu d'un métissage identitaire croissant et d'une multiplication des transactions institutionnelles qui semblent réduire la distance entre les deux solitudes à l'époque contemporaine, est-il toujours légitime de postuler l'existence d'une institution littéraire canadienne-anglaise homogène dans son discours interprétatif et évaluatif autonome dans sa réception de la littérature québécoise? En s'arrêtant à deux périodes charnières (1900-1939 et 1965-1989), la présente étude fait également état de certaines données statistiques tirées de cette recherche et se penche sur les auteurs québécois les plus étudiés au Canada anglais.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".