RE-PRESENTING AMERICA(S): CANADIAN WRITING AND ITS PATH TOWARDS A HYBRID SURVIVAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The task undertaken within this theoretical study is to reflect upon contemporary debates concerning national identity, especially in what concerns the condition of Canada, as to find out how the idea of a fixed time and space might be destabilised. Margaret Atwood’s thematic guide Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature (1972) provides me with the major framework for conducting such analysis, even though the conclusion whereto I get thereby is slightly different from hers. Time, space, identity, reality: everything entails not stability and/or the reinforcement of pureness – on the contrary, these terms all depend on changing continually. The changes never stop, they are just rearranged in a metamorphic array of events occurring sequentially and overlaying one another. In this confusing and complex cultural functioning, it is essential to take such ambivalent and multifaceted identity inconsistency into account when one tries to understand how cultures emerge, interact, and proliferate in the Americas. Nations are texts, those who integrate these nations are readers, and literature is therefore the subjective reality that surfaces out from their experiencing this specific locale. The parallels that might be drawn between the countries within the American continent, and their relevance and/or applicability to the understanding of one another, is an evidence of their interdependence. Fixed identities are never there to be respected; they exist to be questioned, discredited, and finally obliterated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".