Nacionalna identifikacija v Kanadi: dve poglavji iz odnosov anglofone skupnosti do Združenih držav Amerike
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a case study showing two examples of literary relations between Canada and the United States of America. Proceeding from a historical overview of the Canadian geopolitical situation and the situation in the publishing market in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the paper defines the basis of the newly established national ideology as shown in the poetry of the so-called Confederation poets. The basis of their ideas is no doubt British-Canadian cultural nationalism, but the paper focuses on the poetry of Archibald Lampman in order to show the dependence of their late-nineteenth-century literary idiom on both American ideas and the American literary market. In the topos of nature – specifically in the images of menacing nature, the “northern frontier” etc. –, the binarism between the American source and its Canadian modification also becomes inscribed in the Canadian national imaginary. The most influential imagery of the standard Canadian national myth was explicated by Northrop Frye and Margaret Atwood during the second wave of Canadian nationalism in the 1960s. Nevertheless, during the second wave of nationalism, the denial of the continental binarism was at its peak. The reaction of nationalist circles to the presentation of the Governor General’s Award to George Bowering shows their explicit rebuttal of contemporary American poetry personified in the winner of the Award, despite the fact that Allen Ginsberg’s poems and Charles Olson’s theory of projective verse can be seen as co-shaping the poetry of several Canadian nationalist poets of the time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".