Bibliographic record
Abstract
Describing her first encounters with contemporary Indigenous literature in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Okanagan writer and educator Jeannette Armstrong remembers listening to Duke Redbird read his poems on CBC radio, or hunting through Indian newspapers to search out poems “scattered like gems” in their pages. To her, these works reflected “[n]ot unrequited love and romance, not longing for motherland, not taming the wilderness nor pastoral beauty … nor placing the immigrant self,” standard themes of Canadian literary criticism at the time, but rather “our own collective colonized heritage of loss, pain, anger and resistance, and of our pride and identity as Native.” Armstrong defines the early stages of a literature in Canada which is not synonymous with Canadian literature, although it has developed side by side with other contemporary Canadian writing. In saying what Indigenous literature in the 1970s was not, she implies particular relationships to self and community, history and political power, land and story. Her comments also evoke a heady time of protest, of Black and Chicano pride imported from south of the border, and of an intense search for cultural alternatives – taken on by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians – towards a white, Anglo-Saxon, middle-class society that often saw its own assumptions as universal, or, if it acknowledged difference, as superior. Since then, Canadian literature has branched into many literatures, forms and perspectives. Contributing its own richness, Indigenous literature has also flourished, yet it remains inextricably involved with survival. It addresses Canadian readers of all backgrounds, exposing profound and subtle effects of colonialism and offering alternative points of view.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".