MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067522106 · doi:10.1093/fmls/cqi031

Fictional Fossils: Life and Death Writing in Carol Shields's The Stone Diaries

2005· article· en· W2067522106 on OpenAlex
Marie-Louise Wasmeier

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueForum for Modern Language Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife writingLiteratureWitnessBiographyHistoryPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[T]he moment of death occurs while we're still alive. Life marches right up to the wall of that final darkness, one extreme state of being butting against the other. Not even a breath separates them. Not even a blink of the eye. 1 C. Shields, The Stone Diaries (Toronto, 1993), p. 342. Further references will be given in the text, as page number. R egarding life and death as ultimate opposites, as two irreconcilable extremes, is a “distortion” 2 challenged by texts, and in particular by life writing. Jeremy Tambling calls all writing “potentially posthumous since it cannot have a punctual relation to a life of writing”. 3 Michel Foucault, too, in his essay “What Is an Author?”, emphasises writing's relationship to death, which he sees as twofold: on the one hand narrativity has always been “intended to perpetuate the immortality of the hero”; on the other hand, it is “designed to ward off death”. 4 In Ivan Callus' words, “to memorialise a life in writing […] is to play with death's deferral”: 5 the text assumes eternal life in the place of the protagonist or writer, and thus allows her or him to live on in their stories. (Auto)biography as a genre thus “challenges a life–death distinction” 6 by softening the delimitations between the two, breaking down the seeming opposition between life and death. Life writing preserves aspects of past lives that would otherwise dissolve without trace, but, in the act of preservation, it destroys the very features which make “life” into the activity of living 7 – so as text it constitutes a contradiction in terms: it extracts life from life in order to conserve it. This is the reason why “the language of monuments [and] epitaphs […] pervades biographical and autobiographical discourse and testifies to the tensions between a posthumous memorialisation of a life and the attempt to grasp the ‘life’ as it was lived.” 8 Laura Marcus quotes W. H. Epstein, who asserts that the “cultural function of biography” is to “turn life into text and text back into life”. 9 I. Callus, “Comparatism and (Auto)thanatography: Death and Mourning in Blanchot, Derrida, and Tim Parks”, in: Autobiografictions: Comparative Essays , ed. L. Boldrini & P. Davies, Comparative Critical Studies Vol. I, No. 3 (2004), p. 337. J. Tambling, Becoming Posthumous: Life and Death in Literary and Cultural Studies (Edinburgh, 2001), p. 8. M. Foucault, “What Is an Author?”, in: The Foucault Reader , ed. P. Rabinov (London, 1984), p. 102. Callus, p. 337. Tambling, p. 7. L. Marcus, Auto/biographical Discourse: Criticism, Theory, Practice (Manchester & New York, 1994), p. 100. Marcus, pp. 27ff. Marcus, quoting from W. H. Epstein, Recognizing Biography (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 27ff.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.264 · 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