MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415774846 · doi:10.3138/jcs.49.2.150

Refashioning Mi’kmaw Narratives into Maritime Fictions: Theodore Goodridge Roberts, Frank Parker Day, and Alden Nowlan

2015· article· en· W2415774846 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Creelman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceAppropriationNarrativeColonialismHistoryModernism (music)ScotsSociologyLiteratureArt historyArtPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, missionary Silas Rand worked with the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia. His two-volume collection, Legends of the Micmacs, contains 87 distinct stories, and these texts soon became important source materials for Euro-Canadian writers who were interested in telling stories about the Mi’kmaq people. Three Maritime writers attempted to tell tales from within an Aboriginal perspective: Theodore Roberts in The Red Feathers (1907), Frank Parker Day in John Paul’s Rock (1932), and Alden Nowlan in Nine Micmac Legends (1982). All three writers retell or refashion Mi’kmaq narratives, all three provoke questions related to the issue of appropriation, and all three advance their own imperial, colonial, or modernist perspectives as somehow innately part of the Maritime experience. Roberts’s imperial romance, Day’s realist-romance, and Nowlan’s modernist reshapings tell us a great deal about the shifting perspectives of Euro-Canadians towards Aboriginal peoples, as well as the shifting discourses that have confined Aboriginal communities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.029
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207