MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595181608

The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction

2014· article· en· W2595181608 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueExtrapolation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierHistoryEncyclopediaFantasyArt historyStorytellingEmpireLiteratureClassicsSociologyNarrativeLawArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genre Wars, Game On, Galactic Empire. Mark Bould, Andrew M. Butler, Adam Roberts, and Sheryl Vint, eds. The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. New York: Routledge, 2009. 554 pp. ISBN 9780415453783. $51.95 he.Reviewed by Donald M. HasslerThe Futurians, John Campbell of Astounding, Jack Williamson, C. L. Moore, Henry Kuttner, and James Gunn, were all too young, along with many others, to view world sf as essentially anything other than the American Revolution of twentieth-century storytelling. Many of us here in the colonies know in our bones that they were right-and Campbell, with Asimov's Galactic fighting for him, has won all genre wars. But many were just too young to have experienced the singularity of the Great War and, great as their generation of writers with their generation of works were, what China Mieville in the final essay in The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction calls an awareness of total crisis never quite hit home (514). The Futurians toyed with Marxist ideas and with using story to effect social change. In the long run, however, they were most interested in hacking out American sf at the frontier. This was their world, and it was a new and good world, but much of the task of defining and describing sf in the twenty-first century has been undertaken in the UK. With the exception of Vint (a Canadian), the editors here are British and take their place with John Clute and Peter Nicholls (The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) and Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn {The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction) in the production of useful reference volumes. The battle is not just for categorization, reference, and details. It is a battle for the genre and what we used to call a of ideas. In fact, I think that together these essays ought not to be marketed as a reference volume. One reason this review is so late in coming is that The Routledge Companion resists labeling itself. If it is a companion, it is a very contentious one. The countries involved are not just nation states but the larger territory of ideas.One of the essays in Part III, Issues and Challenges, carries the huge title Empire and is subtly written by the brilliant Hungarian now working in Indiana, Istvan Csicsery Ronay, Jr. And yet it is a strange essay that seems more concerned with history and politics than with story. Readers will see that each of the four editors have also contributed well-written essays that push the boundaries of genre to the extreme-from some vague concept that Vint calls science studies to psychoanalysis for Butler. Clearly the editors seem to have accepted the American Revolution in modern literature totally, so that sf can now include virtually every interest in our complex culture. My hunch is that this takes the discussion a long way from the frontier and, to the point of this review, it takes the nature of The Routledge Companion from reference book to essay collection. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.220 · 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