MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sonic Spectres: Word Ghosts in Madeleine Thien’s Dogs at the Perimeter and the Digital Map Project, ‘Fictional Montreal/Montréal fictif’

2018· article· en· W2901202697 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ceri Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon Journal of Canadian Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKeele University
KeywordsUnsaidThe ImaginaryRelation (database)Reading (process)Art historyArtVisual artsLiteratureCartographyLinguisticsPsychoanalysisPhilosophyPsychologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes various ghosts and their connections with the unsaid and said in relation to Madeleine Thien’s Dogs at the Perimeter (2011) and the digital map project, ‘Fictional Montreal/Montréal fictif’ (Morgan and Lichti, 2016–17). Drawing on Jacques Derrida’s work on spectres, it suggests that Thien’s novel offers both negative and positive hauntings, by drawing attention to the far-reaching effects of the Cambodian genocide. It goes on to reflect on absence and presence, voice and body in relation to the digital map, which features recordings of authors reading extracts of their fiction set in Montréal. Arguing that ‘Fictional Montreal/Montréal fictif’ performs an interplay between material and imaginary geographies, the article proposes that the map offers the possibility of new conceptualizations of Montréal. In so doing, it argues that both it and Dogs at the Perimeter embrace the potentially utopian aspect of spectrality identified by Derrida. This is due to their encouraging readers to think about our collective responsibilities to each other in a world characterized by mobility and migration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207