MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902408384 · doi:10.1017/9781787443921.014

Across the “Ocean of the Page”: Nischik and Kroetsch Gaining Ground

2018· book-chapter· en· W2902408384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aritha van Herk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THE WORK THAT Reingard Nischik and Robert Kroetsch accomplished together in editing and publishing Gaining Ground: European Critics on Canadian Literature was remarkable for its initiative and its instigative impulse. The Canadian writer Robert Kroetsch—then at the height of his “Mr. Canadian Postmodern” moment—complemented Reingard Nischik's extraordinary comparative perspicacity. The result was a volume that anticipated the shift of twenty-first-century Canadian literature from a regional and thematic arena to a globalized realm, one that does not isolate Canadian writing but positions it in discourse with multiple other movements and ideas. I planned to revisit the work of Gaining Ground as an historical discussion in the context of that collection: I thought I would evaluate Nischik and Kroetsch's editorial dialogue, the rationale for their choices, and the consequences of their selection. I expected that I would be able to shift to the suggestive arena of how that work might have occurred today or if its concerns would differ significantly in light of the changes that have measured Canadian literature's international profile and how the narrative of Canadian literature, as read by Europeans, has changed. As I should have predicted, the lines between expectation and outcome were blurred and over-written. When I visited Konstanz University in July of 2017, I wanted to interview Reingard Nischik about this unusual and original collaboration, and then to combine that interview with an archival examination of the traces of the editing of the volume in the Robert Kroetsch Fonds (held at the University of Calgary's Archives and Special Collections). Since he died in an accident in 2011, Kroetsch is not available to interview. But my plan was diverted. My “interview” with Reingard Nischik became an intense conversation about expectation, women in academia, mentorship, supervision, exclusion and inclusion, as well as the influence and reception of Canadian Studies, where Nischik has been a key player for some thirty-five years. We exchanged stories about the development of a new generation of European scholars of Canadian literature, and agreed that working with young scholars is the most rewarding aspect of academic work, personal connection alongside the traces that writers and critics leave. She had found her file of correspondence on Gaining Ground , and re-visited the process with nostalgic excitement, both re-living the challenges of the work and reveling in the incredible achievement that it ultimately manifested.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0410.052
Scholarly communication0.0330.017
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusicology and Musical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207