Bibliographic record
Abstract
Native Literature is Not Postcolonial Jesse Archibald-Barber, Associate Professor The scholarly idea that has had the greatest impact on English studies in Canada is Thomas King’s argument that Native literature is not postcolonial (“Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial”). Over the past forty years, First Nations literature has often been included within Canadian literature and interpreted through the lenses of Western critical theory. While this had positive effects, it also became another form of appropriation and colonizing practice. However, King’s argument liberated the field from Western criticism. It helped establish First Nations literature as its own discipline, with a focus on decolonization, requiring that First Nations critical theories must emerge from the literature itself. This is key to ongoing literary inquiry, for while First Nations works are still a part of English studies in Canada, one must recognize that the literature is also distinct from Canadian literature: its literary sovereignty flows from recognition of First Nations as distinct nations with distinct histories. [End Page 14] Jesse Archibald-Barber, Associate Professor Department of Indigenous Languages, Arts, and Cultures First Nations University of Canada 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".