Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume: Laureat Prix gouvemeur general pour son roman Redwork en 1992, Michael Bedard discute de l'importance de l'influence de Blake, Bohme, Bronte, Dickinson et Flaubert sur son oeuvre. Son affinite avec les poetes romantiques est evidente: il tend a recourir a des metaphores organiques pour decrire le processus createur et, tout comme Blake, parle non pas du bien et mal mais de l'opposition entre l'imagination et la restriction, la lumiere et l'obscurite, la fleur qui s'epanouit et l'entonnoir qui engloutit. Summary: Michael Bedard, winner of the Governor General's Award for Redwork (1992), and one of Canada's most gifted writers for young people, discusses in this interview the influences of Blake, Boehme, Bronte, Dickinson, and Flaubert on his craft and vision. Bedard's kinship with the Romantic poets is clear he tends to use organic metaphors to describe the creative process, and, like Blake, he speaks not ofgood and evil, but of imagination versus restriction, light versus darkness, the unfolding flower versus the restrictive funnel. Bedard also discusses details of his craft — his use of landscape and architectural space and broader issues such as his generic slipperiness (he mixes realism with fantasy, mystery, and horror).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 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".