Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagine, if you can, no Canadian literature on this campus.Imagine a new Comparative Literature program that is focused totally on Europe.That was the situation that I found when I arrived at the University of Alberta in September, 1970.It was the normal situation on campuses across Canada.The literary canon was determined by academies in Europe and the elite American universities.It is appropriate, therefore, that students in the Comparative Literature program in Edmonton are now, in 2010, concerned with national literatures, the countercanon, and the contribution of Comparative Literature to cross-cultural study.How did changes take place in Comparative Literature on this campus and on other campuses ?My paper traces part of our literary history in Canada.In the 1970s some academics and creative writers at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec developed a new approach to the study of Canadian literature in both English and French which went on to have a profound influence on Canadian literature programs and research across the country.They called for Canadian writing to be studied by comparing English and French works.They argued for comparative study that involved translation and bilingualism rather than the unilingual approach found in national literature programs.These propositions were controversial at the time.I will trace some specific links from this small Quebec university to Alberta and examine their effects on programs and research to this day.I call this comparative approach the Sherbrooke School. Some Thin HistoryBefore we go to Sherbrooke, let us step back briefly into the modest history of the study of our national literature.Canadian literature as an academic area began in the 1960s against some opposition and criticism.One of the problems was the lack of significant texts and reputable authors to form the critical mass for a viable, identifiable body of literature.Any list of names was rather thin: Hugh MacLennan,
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
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".