Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is now Canada and Quebec remains marked by unequal relations of difference initiated by the advent of European explorers and settlers. Instead of assuming any perceived end of coloniality such as Canadian Confederation in 1867, legislative independence with the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the establishment of Canadian Citizenship in 1947, or the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, this chapter reads the postcolonial spaces of Canada as persisting in ongoing relations of power, dominance, contest, dialogue and negotiation in a field originally constituted by the moment of colonial contact. Initial settler relationships with indigenous populations, with their respective European imperial centres, and with other settlers (including here the colonies to the south, which in turn will become an imperial power) are complicated by other diasporas arriving later from everywhere on the globe, altering any previous emotional, social, economic, political and symbolic geographies of North America. The inclusion of black, indigenous and other minority and subaltern writing from Canada appears uncontested in postcolonial studies, although this corpus certainly requires more visibility and discussion with attention to Canadian specificity. Theorists including Stephen Slemon, Linda Hutcheon, Donna Bennett, Diana Brydon and Cynthia Sugars have also argued, however, for the importance of other writing from settler nation states like Canada for postcolonial studies. That view is in keeping with the earlier suggestion by Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin in The Empire Writes Back that the term ‘postcolonial’ should ‘cover all the culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to the present day’.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".