MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744250682 · doi:10.15388/litera.2005.4.8098

Multikultūralizmo problema Kanados literatūroje

2015· article· en· W2744250682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rūta Šlapkauskaitė

Bibliographic record

VenueLiteratūra · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismCriticismPostmodernismPoliticsSociologyPostcolonialism (international relations)Literary criticismCanadian literatureReading (process)Construct (python library)AestheticsGender studiesEpistemologyLiteraturePhilosophyLinguisticsPolitical scienceArtLawPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article addresses the problem of multiculturalism in Canadian literature. While focusing on the major concerns of Canadian critical discourse on multiculturalism and ethnic minority writing, this theorising of Canadian multicultural literature highlights three areas of research – the definition of the notion, studies of postcolonialism and postmodernism and the simulative character of literary politics – that have been instrumental in conceptualising our understanding of Canadian multiculturalism and its reflections in literary texts. Alongside the theoretical observations about the problematic nature of the dominant forms of literary criticism on Canadian multiculturalism, the article offers a hypothesis of the multicultural aesthetic as a system of recurrent tropes that construct our reception of multicultural writing. Eventually, to illustrate the ambivalences of the multicultural aesthetic in Canadian literature, the article provides a brief reading of Anita Rau Badami’s novel Tamarind Mem as an example of the simulated multicultural exotic.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0210.019
Scholarly communication0.0230.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiteratūraSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207