MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sense of Place in Rudy Wiebe’s The Temptations of Big Bear

2014· article· en· W2178837648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wen Lee Ng, Wan Roselezam Wan Yahya

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of comparative literature and translation studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepictionSense of placePlace attachmentSociologyOrder (exchange)GeographyAestheticsHistoryEthnologyEconomic geographySocial psychologyPsychologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Temptations of Big Bear by Rudy Wiebe focuses on Big Bear’s struggle against the European settlers who take over the land inhabited by the Natives for thousands of years. This impressive depiction of the Western Canadian history is revitalised using vivid portrayal of Canadian prairies highlighting ‘place’ as a crucial aspect in this novel. This paper, therefore, aims to highlight the various portrayals of place in the novel The Temptations of Big Bear before progressing to examine the relationship between the place and its inhabitants depicted in the novel. In order to attain these two objectives, two concepts are applied in this study - place (physical setting) and sense of place (territorial bonding). The findings of this study reveal that the places portrayed in the novel can be classified into two main categories: landscape and dwelling place of buffalo. Then, with the concept of sense of place, the relationship between the Natives and each of these places is foregrounded. Most importantly, this study reveals that the relationship between the place and the inhabitants are bidirectional.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.025
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of comparative literature and translation studiesSame topicShort Stories in Global LiteratureFrench-language works237,207