Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper traces a trend in contemporary Canadian literature: many Canadian authors (especially those of non-British and non-French origin) are producing work that, by transcending the boundaries of the nation-state and the traditional categories of Canadianness, becomes more global in character. This results from the fact that contemporary Canadian experience is often the experience of a country other than Canada. Whereas the earlier generation of "transcultural writers" (a term Carolyn Redl uses to refer to writers that are rooted neither in Canada nor in the country of origin), like the mainstream writers, set their fiction almost exclusively in Canada and searched for Canadian identity and an answer to Frye's question, "Where is here?", more and more younger writers, especially those writing since the passage of the Multiculturalism Act in 1988, are asking, "Where is there?" Sometimes they examine the old worlds through the prism of the security of the new world, and sometimes they write about countries to which they have no cultural attachment. Although some nationalist critics warn that this trend poses a threat to the very existence of Canadian literature (or at least to the traditional concept thereof), my paper argues that the work of these authors neither stands in opposition to the Canadian literary tradition nor poses a threat to it. It co-exists with it, complements it, and enriches it with new perspectives, aesthetic techniques and contributes to knowledge of other cultures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.008 |
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".