Renegotiating ‘Once Upon a Time’: Fairy tales in contemporary Australian writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The twenty-first century has seen a burst of fairy tale activity in Australian literary writing, publishing and scholarship. The Australian Fairy Tale Society was established, and its activities have served both to marshal existing resources and stimulate new research, much of it with a historical focus on early attempts to forge an Australian fairy tale tradition. Two of Australia’s literary journals, Griffith Review (which has a broad general readership) and Text (which, as the journal of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, has a more academic audience), have in recent years devoted special issues to fairy tales in Australian writing. Meanwhile, and as surveyed below, the commercial publishing sphere has been alive with the production of fairy tale retellings in the form of novels, short fiction collections and anthologies. However, for all of this activity, which confirms Australia’s participation in a global “fairy-tale web” (Bacchilega 2013: 18), the range of uses to which contemporary Australian writers have so far put the fairy tale has been curiously constrained. The nation’s writers continue to look primarily to Europe for narratives they can use as the inspiration or scaffolding for new fictions, but unlike contemporary writers in countries such as the USA and Canada, they have not confidently remade Europe’s best-known tales in their own local contexts. Rather than reshaping European tales within conspicuously Australian settings, this country’s most prominent fairy tale revisionists have overwhelmingly chosen to set their new fictions in Europe itself, or else in fantasy worlds. While fairy tales are thriving down under, it would be difficult to make the case that Australia a fairy tale tradition that it can truly call its own.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".