MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164899983 · doi:10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20079759

“Too Visible: Race, Gender and Resistance in the Construction of a Canadian Identity in the Poetry of Himani Bannerji”

2007· article· en· W2164899983 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Laura Arce Álvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueMiscelánea A Journal of English and American Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRace (biology)PoetryResistance (ecology)Identity (music)Gender studiesSociologyArtAestheticsLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian literature stands as an example of postcolonial writing. The literature of the Diaspora questions and reshapes basic concepts of multicultural societies like national identity, community and race. These establish a division between the white European identities accepted by the colonial governments and the others, those who in exile try to find a space to live in this new multicultural society. Canada, as a postcolonial society, is a space where different cultures and religions meet but which does not seem to fit in the definition of the Canadian individual imposed by white European cultural imperialism. Thus the others, that is, the exiled individuals, write literature to create a space suitable for their condition as immigrants and, in it, construct their own identities as ‘double-consciousness’ people. The intention of this paper is to analyze the poetry of the South-Asian Canadian writer and critic Himani Bannerji especially focusing on the use of metaphors related to race and gender in her attempt to use them as the elements that build the space and identity of the second type of individual referred to above. They are also weapons of resistance against the suffering, marginalization and subordination imposed by cultural imperialism.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiscelánea A Journal of English and American StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207