No Home or Native Land: How Canadian History Got Left Out of Recent Historical Fiction for Children by Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume: L'analyse des recits historiques canadiens que proposent S. Egoff et J. Saltman dans The New Republic of Childhood neglige certaines tendances importantes du genre. En outre, leur affirmation selon laquelle ce genre s'est ameliore doit etre revue en profondeur. Signalons quant aux tendances oubliees les faits suivants: la plupart des recits pour la jeunesse du Canada sont bien des romans historiques; la majorite des ecrivains melent les genres, s'interessent au passe recent, s'attachent aux individus et non aux groupes; enfin, beaucoup d'entre eux ont ete influences par le realisme de la litterature americaine pour les adolescents. Toutefois, le manque de leadership des historiens professionnels et l'emprise de certaines conventions litteraires ont amene les auteurs a deformer la realite historique canadienne. Summary: In their discussion of Canadian historical fiction for children in The New Republic of Childlhood , Egoff and Saltman overlook some important trends. Also, their claim that the genre has improved must be qualified extensively. Among the trends omitted: most of the best recent Canadian children's novels are historical fiction; most writers of children's fiction are now mixing genres; most are now focusing on the recent past; most focus on individuals rather than groups; most have been heavily influenced bv the so-called realism of American young-- adult fiction. Conclusion: lack of leadership from professional Canadian historians and the pressure to master certain literary conventions has caused writers of Canadian historical fiction for children to distort Canadian history.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".