Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Migrant Literatures: Concept from an Excentric Literary Field. This article focuses on the concept of migrant literatures as it was developed by literary studies in Quebec at the beginning of the 1980s. It examines the conditions that led to the emergence of the notion, such as the historical evolution, immigration policies and linguistic specificity, and compares it with the situation in France, where such a concept was not considered by literary theory until recently and still meets with a certain resistance to multiculturalism. Hybridity is a key term to define migrant literatures, a term that emerged alongside postmodernism, and contributes to reconsidering the traditional boundaries of national literatures, often based on a uniform vision of history and a territorial perspective of space. On a literary level, the emergence of migrant literatures can be attributed to the tendency, in Quebec literature, towards exile, as it represents itself in an excentric perspective. As such, it fosters a close relationship with alterity and welcomes multiple identities. Quebec literature has also been described as adventureless, mostly representing an idyll sheltered from the outer world. This paper suggests that this also can promote a fertile ground for migrant writers, whether they need a refuge from a difficult experience or can offer the adventure missing from the general trend of works.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".