Bibliographic record
Abstract
t's only by our lack of ghosts / we're haunted": few lines feel as familiar, and also as dissonant and as wrong, as Earle Birney's often-quoted conclusion to "Can.Lit." (One 58). What are Canadian literature and culture currently, after all, but a succession of hauntings? From stories of survival and resistance in residential schools to narratives of the internment of Japanese Canadians in wartime Vancouver through to ongoing journalistic narratives of the murder of Indigenous women and the neglect of them and their families by police investigators in recent times, Canada's stories are full of ghosts, revenants, spectres, unsettled histories, and conflicts. 1 Has Birney himself become a ghost figure, part of what David Damrosch calls the "shadow canon" (45), those writers caught between the "hyper canon" of often-cited authors dominating the literary ecosystem and the "counter canon" of resistant, Indigenous, and alternative voices supplementing and challenging the mainstream? The "shadow canon," for Damrosch, exists in a strange kind of literary half-death, circulating in culture but not quite haunting it, acknowledged as having been a presence without ever registering in ongoing scholarly discussion, teaching, or debate. Birney's (troubled) nationalism, his unreflective misogyny, his lack of interest in ongoing Indigenous experience in lands where, for his writing, the "Chehaylis are gone / & the salmon with them" ("What's So Big About Green?" One 60): all of this pushes Birney's books to the back of the cultural rummaging-drawer, unlikely tools to come to hand for our given moment. Scholarly trails take us away from these tracks through "the welling and wildness of Canada the fling of a nation" ("North Star West," Selected 106) towards global and border-crossing themes and interests, from Jahan Ramazani's arguments for a "transnational poetics" (23) to Susan Stanford Friedman's recent proposal that we read "planetary modernisms" (1) in place of the old nation-bound canons Birney and his contemporaries did so much to construct and contest. In I "
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".