Questions of Trace: Presence, Politics, and Virtual Necromancy in Canadian Literary Archives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions of Trace: Presence, Politics, and Virtual Necromancy in Canadian Literary Archives excavates the documents, both archival and published, of politically-inclined works by Guy Vanderhaeghe, Katherine Govier, and Robert Kroetsch to examine depictions of progressivism and agrarian socialism in 20th-century western Canada. The fonds serve as case studies to theorise archival presence, absence, and trace. I conclude by unpacking the politics inherent to the archive and the practice of academic collection. Specifically, I examine how digitisation radicalises the archive’s spatiality and alters the relationship between author, text, reader, and archive to serve a necromantic function: it raises the author as an uncanny simulation, a revenant coming back to the text, the selection, the present. Drawing on the works of Jacques Derrida and others, I show how this evocation deconstructs the archive’s own nature, becoming a mystical enunciation that haunts the ecology of the digital environment. Poems and flash fictions introduce each of the thesis’ chapters, adopting the style and/or subject matter of the primary texts to reflect the themes that will be discussed and to engage with the discourses that will be employed in the critical writing that follows. My project employs a creative, conceptual, practice-based, and meta-cognitive approach to research that re-collects authors’ texts and characters, but also interpretations thereof, blurring the boundaries between genres of academic writing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".