Bibliographic record
Abstract
esc: English Studies in Canada and All-Inclusiveness Juliet McMaster, Professor Emeritus I too was “in on the creation” of English Studies in Canada, although at second hand, being married to Rowland McMaster: he chaired the accute committee that set up esc in 1972, invited Lauriat Lane to take on the job as first editor, and became editor himself in 1985. So inevitably I look at esc historically, and to some extent through Rowland’s eyes. What single aspect of esc has had the greatest impact over its forty years? I follow Rowland in believing that the great strength of accute’s journal is its all-inclusiveness. It still provides “a forum where the Canadian scholarly community working in English can be identified, can become conscious of itself, recognize its newcomers, its stars, trends, and compartments, and therefore develop its own scholarly discourse” (R. D. McMaster, esc 15:1, 7). If anything, it has become more inclusive, as our literary discipline embraces interdisciplinarity and cultural studies. [End Page 4] Juliet McMaster, Professor Emeritus English University of Alberta Copyright © 2015 Association of Canadian College and University Teachers
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".