MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463164473

“There Are Things You Don’t Get Over”: Resistant Mourning in Lisa Moore’s February

2014· article· en· W2463164473 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Caitlin Charman

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefTragedy (event)RhetoricResource (disambiguation)SociologyPsychoanalysisHistoryPsychologyPhilosophySocial scienceComputer scienceLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American writer Wendell Berry argues that there is an explicit link between the tendency to treat places primarily as sites for resource extraction and treating people like exchangeable parts. It is this neoliberal rhetoric of abstraction—of people and place — that Lisa Moore’s novel, February , critiques in its portrayal of the sinking of the oil rig, Ocean Ranger , off the coast of Newfoundland in 1982. The novel reveals the grief of one family following the loss of their father, and illustrates how the impact of a tragedy of this scope lasts for generations. Perhaps more importantly, though, the novel shows how one widower’s refusal to simply get over the death of her husband resists the kind of corporate amnesia that treats people and places as abstractions that can be easily replaced. Her prolonged grief suggests that “resistant mourning,” a concept advocated by proponents such as Jacques Derrida and R. Clifton Spargo, might offer the possibility of an ethical response to the tragedies caused by resource extraction.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0370.036
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207