Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative Canadian/Québécois literary studies are alive and well in Canada. Marie Carrière and Albert Braz, the guest editors of a recent issue of the usually international-in-focus Canadian Review of Comparative Literature , confidently claim in their introduction to the special issue devoted to the topic that, "despite its politically problematic name, comparative Canadian literature remains as vital as ever at the beginning of the twenty-first century." 1 They do go on to note, however, that "the unicultural orientation of the criticism of both English Canadian and Québécois literature is particularly surprising" (Carrière and Braz 2009, 6, my emphasis). While I would agree with Carrière and Braz's observation that "what are still tentatively branded the country's two 'littératures offi-cielles,' or 'official literatures'" 2 tend to be studied separately in the fields of literary criticism, I would argue that there is—and has been over time—a group of productive scholars of Canadian/Québécois literary works who have devoted their careers to the comparative study of Canada's two major literatures—today most often called, in their separate manifestations, "Canadian literature and cultural studies" and "lettres québécoises." In this chapter, I will begin with a chronological journey through comparative literary analyses, and then engage with some scholars' suggestions about twenty-first-century work in "comparative Canadian literature"—a truncated term that means scholarly works that analyze the literatures in the two official languages of Canada. Before doing so, however, I want to lay bare my position.KeywordsLiterature StudyComparative LiteratureLiterary CriticismOfficial LanguageLiterary WorkThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".