Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tries to show how the structure of the romance and the main themes, loss and search for identity, in A Map of Glass, Jane Urquhart’s latest novel, are determined by the characters’ disposition to internalize their Canadian landscape. In fact, this process of “emplacement” turns out to be the essential way to rediscover oneself and one’s family. In particular, in a country like Canada, this is still more comprehensible as its inhabitants are so closely related to a landscape, which, more than history, haunts their imagination and shapes their desire for survival and a sense of personal and national belonging. Bibliography Atwood, Margaret. 1972. Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature. Toronto: House of Anansi Press. Compton, Anne. 2005. Romancing the Landscape: Jane Urquhart’s Fiction. In Ferri, Laura, (ed). Jane Urquhart: Essays on Her Works. Toronto: Guernica. Eisler, Riane, 1987. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Frye, Northrop. 1976. The Secular Structure: A Study of the Structure of Romance. Cambridge Mass & London: Harvard U.P. Moore, Susan. 2008. Walking Towards the Past: Loss and Place in Jane Urquhart’s A Map of Glass . Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 13, 2: 62-78. Urquhart, Jane. 2005. A Map of Glass. London: Bloomsbury. Zettel, Susan. 1991. Jane Urquhart: On Becoming a Novelist. Canadian Forum, 59: 18-21.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".