MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068562958 · doi:10.3828/bjcs.2011.5

Satiric lament for a city: Mordecai Richler's <i>Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!</i> , Bill 101 and Montreal

2011· article· en· W2068562958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerald Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamentNationalismHistoryElegyExplicationLiteratureDemocracyReligious studiesInjusticeLawPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyPoetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade of his life, Mordecai Richler found some of his favouritesatirical targets – cultural nationalism, special pleading, injustice andanti-Semitism – fused in the province of Quebec's aspiration for nationhood,especially as that ambition was expressed in 1977's Bill 101, theCharter of the French Language, and its many refinements. This law drasticallyrestricted the use of English in Quebec, violating in outrageousfashion, in Richler's view, the democratic right to free expression ofQuebec's non-Francophone minorities. Richler first gained notorietyamong the Québécois when he published his criticisms in an article forthe New Yorker (1991), which became the book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!Requiem for a Divided Country (1992). The present article first contextualisesRichler's satire in the history of Canadian satire, then briefly inRichler's relation to Montreal, and finally in Quebec history with particularreference to language. It proceeds to offer an explication andanalysis of Richler's satirical criticisms of Quebec's nationalism andlanguage laws, and, in closing, shows more extensively that embeddedin Richler's satirical analysis is a hitherto overlooked prose elegy for hisbeloved native city of Montreal.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207