Szum na łączach. Kanadyjskie re-wizje: postkolonializm, TransKanada i Pierwsze Narody
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agnieszka Rzepa It’s a Bad Line. Canadian Re-visions: Postcolonialism,TransCanada and First Nations In the 1990s discussions on Canadian literature and culture were dominated by postcolonial discourses that coexisted with reflections on the Canadian model of multiculturalism. At the beginning of the 21st century the discussion on Canadian postcolonialism, and in particular on the position of Canadian literature in relation to postcolonial discourses, veered towards transcultural aspects of Canadian culture and literature. Such re-visions of the concept of postcolonial Canada as a “Second World” country have resulted in the emergence of an inspiring new concept of TransCanada, which – in the intention of its makers – should go beyond the postcolonial discourse, but which in fact remains entangled in it. The vision of TransCanada, just like the vision of postcolonial Canada, is complicated and problematized by the presence of the First Nations, their literatures and cultures. First Nations writers take active part in the developing discussion, inevitably focusing on the colonial dependence of the First Nations within Canada. Even though all the participants in the discussion have stressed the need to work out points of intersection and connection among different discourses on Canada, and in particular to take into account First Nations points of view, the net impression is often that of a “bad line call.” One of the most interesting aspects of this fluuctuating context is the potential positioning of First Nations literatures vis-a-vis Trans.Can.Lit.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".