Issues of Colonialism in Dennis Lee's “Cadence, Country, Silence: Writing in Colonial Space”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In “Cadence, Country, and Silence: Writing in Colonial Space,” Dennis Lee finds that “for an English Canadian, exploring the obstructions to cadence means exploring the nature of colonial space.” His statement, “the prime fact about my country is that it has become an American client state”, speaks volumes on cultural colonization in Canada. Lee finds that, “Canadian media is over flown with “Yankee program”, and the schoolchildren learn that, “Abraham Lincoln was their country's greatest President”, and thus suggests that the artifacts of popular culture in Canada are imported from America. Surprisingly he finds that, “Canadian achievement in any field, especially those of the imagination, was a direct reflection of our sense of inferiority.” Dennis Lee candidly puts forward the pervading irony in elite media and finds himself astonished at two findings, “the first that the American government had been lying about the war on a colossal scale, and the second that the Canadian media, from which he had learnt most of the facts about Vietnam were spreading its lies.” In this context how to write something of our own is the question, and for answering to it, Dennis Lee finds the process of making a poem which “enacts in words the presence of what we live among. It arises from the tough, delicate, heartbreaking rooting of what is in its own nonbeing. From that rooting, there arise elemental movements of being: of hunger, of play, of rage, of celebration, of dying .Such movements are always particular, speaking the things which are. A poem enacts those living movements in words.” The present paper is a discussion on writing something of our own under different pressures in current cyber space of liquid nationality, with reference to the ideas of Dennis Lee as discussed in “Cadence, Country, Silence: Writing in Colonial Space.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| 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".