Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume: Les conceptions traditionelles de l'identite canadienne qui president a notre lecture des textes litteraires influent egalement sur notre perception des particularismes de la litterature pour la jeunesse dite regionale. A partir de six albums illustres, dont trois proviennent des Prairies et trois du Quebec, l'auteur s'attache a demontrer que les appellations cannadienne et regionale sont des categories importantes mais secondaires dans l'appreciation de ces ouvrages. La critique canadienne a tendace a surevaluer ces caracteristiques secondaires au detriment des qualites explicitement et specifiquement litteraires de ces textes. Summary: The traditional conceptions, recently contested, of Canadian identity that affects the ways we read literary texts in general also affect our reading of Canadian children's literature. This article considers six picture books, three by Prairie writers and three from Quebec, in order to make the point that both Canadian and regional categories should be understood as helpful markers that are secondary to the primary qualities of the six books as fictions (while might be more useful term in postcolonial discussions than it was when it was simply opposed to nation). Prairie writing and writing from Quebec can indeed be distinguished by secondary characteristics, but in Canadian criticism we have tended to overvalue these kinds of secondary characteristics and either undervalue, or pay less attention to, the more explicitly and specifically literary qualities of these and other texts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".