MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604739849 · doi:10.1353/ari.2017.0021

Pathways of Creativity in Contemporary Newfoundland and Labrador ed. by María Jesús Hernáez Lerena

2017· article· en· W2604739849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueAriel · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipCreativityContext (archaeology)GratitudeArt historyArtSociologyHistoryLawArchaeologyPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Pathways of Creativity in Contemporary Newfoundland and Labrador ed. by María Jesús Hernáez Lerena Jonathan Parsons (bio) María Jesús Hernáez Lerena, ed. Pathways of Creativity in Contemporary Newfoundland and Labrador. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2015. Pp. xiii, 341. £52.99. Pathways of Creativity in Contemporary Newfoundland and Labrador is a significant contribution to scholarly criticism on the cultures of Canada’s most easterly province. All of us working in cultural fields connected to Newfoundland and Labrador owe a debt of gratitude to María Jesús Hernáez Lerena, the Spanish academic who compiled and edited twelve essays from eminent local scholars, artists, and commentators. In her introduction, Hernáez Lerena wonders if as an outsider she can “find a safe observing position between, on the one hand, the romantic reverie [of Newfoundland and Labrador] and, on the other, the reluctance to believe in the existence of untroubled idylls” (1). Far from being an obstacle, her outsider perspective brings a refreshing curiosity and newness to the study, compelling the local contributors to reevaluate taken-for-granted assumptions about the cultures of the island and Labrador. The productive tension between “reverie” and “reluctance” that Hernáez Lerena identifies runs through many of the book’s chapters. The collection is remarkable for a number of reasons. First, although the book is weighted toward literary scholarship, it also includes chapters on film, theatre, visual art, and oral storytelling traditions. Such transdisciplinarity in the context of scholarship on Newfoundland and Labrador is innovative and provides a breadth of reference that asks readers to link various creative endeavors. Of special note in this regard are essays by Jamie Skidmore and Noreen Golfman on Newfoundland theatre and film, respectively. Both Skidmore and Golfman offer an overview of creative works in the province and outline some of the central concerns for scholarly criticism. This is the basic pattern of many of the chapters, and so the collection offers a broad view of both the province’s creative cultures and how these cultures are understood by critics. Along with its transdisciplinary perspective, the collection is also unique in the way it prioritizes marginalized voices, including those of Indigenous, women, and Labradorian artists. The inclusion of writers and artists from Labrador is especially important, because in the context of Newfoundland and Labrador political, economic, and cultural discourses, Labrador is all too often an afterthought. Roberta Buchanan’s essay, “The Aboriginal Writes Back,” reverses the colonial gaze by examining autobiographical writing by Abraham Ulrikab, an Inuk, alongside Wayne Johnston’s historical fiction The Navigator of New York. Robin McGrath’s chapter, “The Diarist Tradition [End Page 174] among Labrador Aboriginal People,” is likewise an important contribution in the way it theorizes and interprets writing from Labrador Inuit, Innu, and Métis. Valerie Legge’s entry focuses on writing from women travelers to Newfoundland and Labrador and how such writing shapes discourses about the province. Legge, McGrath, and Buchanan (as well as others) have worked tirelessly to shed light on what I am calling marginalized perspectives from Labradorians, women, and Indigenous peoples. Hernáez Lerena’s inclusion of interviews with creative writers as the closing chapter of the book is something readers are sure to enjoy. The section includes discussions with Michael Crummey, John Steffler, Marjorie Doyle, and Kevin Major, among others, and presents them in a somewhat unconventional way. Instead of offering the interviews in full and as one piece, Hernáez Lerena instead organizes them into thematized sections on creativity, place, identity, and other topics. I found Maura Hanrahan’s remarks to be particularly sharp—her comments on Indigeneity and cultural identity, for example, indicate some of the limitations and pitfalls of creative productions and scholarship from Newfoundland and Labrador. The interviews in the collection push the writers to self-reflexively examine their creative practices and rootedness in the Newfoundland and Labrador cultural milieu. Hernáez Lerena’s outsider perspective once again proves valuable in her approach to and presentation of these interviews since she asks questions and prompts the artists to discuss aspects of Newfoundland and Labrador culture that are interesting and important but may seem self-evident to...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArielSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207