Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the 1950 publication of his first novel, The Town and the City, Jack Kerouac saw a measure of success. Although sales were disappointing, major outlets reviewed the book (Nicosia 300–310, 319), signaling the twenty-seven-year-old writer’s obvious talent.1 One milieu in which Kerouac’s accomplishment was especially appreciated was the Franco-American or French-Canadian community of New England, in which he had grown up and to which he maintained close ties. Members of this population, who had left Quebec mainly between 1840 and 1930 under severe political, cultural, and economic pressures, were understandably pleased to see the mainstream prominence of “one of their own.” This interest in traditional U.S.-American success was somewhat complicated by the Franco-American community’s strong commitment to survivance, the set of practices designed to maintain cultural identity, especially with regard to the continued use of the French language. Certainly aware of the history and conditions of his home community, Kerouac was thrilled to read Yvonne Le Maître’s review of The Town and the City in the French-language weekly Le Travailleur, published in Worcester, Massachusetts. His reaction to this review, a letter to its author, is a remarkable document for the way it reveals the major role of his relationship to his community in his approach to writing. This role is evident throughout his work—not just in his fictional depictions of French Canadians but also in his consistent fascination with the great variety of cultures in the United States and how they show signs of heterogeneous origins.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".