Beyond the Foreground: Ann-Marie MacDonald’s Prose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It might be that to label a novel queer is to both stigmatize the art and the orientation.There is also the unwieldy job of creating a responsible set of terms to use in queer literary theory: "heteronormative" likely works better than "straight" or even "heterosexual," for some homosexual readers can still read heteronormatively, largely because of social and literary training.The binary, too, of heterosexual and homosexual, queer and straight, is obviously problematic.There are those who would categorically denounce such divisive labels, and there are just as many who would argue that until a minority is not other, responsible members of literary communities, writers and readers alike, need to foreground the history of silence, represent the (in)equality, and educate the prejudiced.It is unproductive to force an artist like Ann-Marie MacDonald, one of Canada's accomplished and well-received writers, in one direction.At the same time, it is useful to explore how her two novels function in terms of representation and orientation.Audience has overwhelmingly, and in rather uniform ways, embraced MacDonald's two novels.MacDonald has been less uniform in her stated ambitions for her writing.At times, it seems she does want readers to appreciate her narratives for being sexually-political; at others she draws attention to their universality.In the latter Canada and Beyond 1-2 (2011): 105 Beyond the Foreground: Ann-Marie MacDonald's Prose
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".