<i>Canadian Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror: Bridging the Solitudes</i> . Edited by <scp>Amy J. Ransom</scp> and <scp>Dominick Grace</scp> <i>Canadian Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror: Bridging the Solitudes</i> . Edited by RansomAmy J. and GraceDominick. (Studies in Global Science Fiction.) London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. xii + 380 pp., ill.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speculative fiction coming from Canada has, perhaps inevitably given the troubled history of different language communities within the country, long been divided into works published in English or in French. This timely study argues that such a dichotomous perspective does not take into account an increasingly globalized context nor the fact that the Canadian speculative-fiction tradition is far richer than the two dominant linguistic strands, as evidenced in a burgeoning indigenous strand of speculative fiction and, more recently, cinema. A magisterial introduction not only charts the Canadian history of the genre but also proposes the metaphor of the bridge to underpin the contributions in the volume. This trope is mined in varied and unexpected ways to denote thematic and ideological bridges for postcolonialism and transnationalism, the construction of myths of national identity, gender gaps, species, and genres. This bridging of the solitudes alluded to in the subtitle gives a loose...
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".