MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3208848701

'Dialectical Laurence.' Review of Ancestors and Gods: Margaret Laurence and the Dialectics of Identity by David Lucking

2004· article· en· W3208848701 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathalie Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialecticIdentity (music)PhraseSubject (documents)ConversationAmbivalencePhilosophyMeaning (existential)WonderHistoryLiteratureEpistemologyGenealogyPsychoanalysisArtLinguisticsAestheticsPsychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The titular phrase ancestors and gods betrays much and, at the same time, very little about this book's real subject: Margaret Laurence's dialectics. Other sets of Laurentian binaries might have served just as well for a title: order and disarray, for example, or then and now. These phrases also appear frequently in Laurence's and the precise meaning of each term, and therefore the relationship between the terms in each pair, are constantly shifting. That these binaries are so interchangeable is precisely Lucking's point: the phrase ancestors and gods serves as a representative paradigm for an ambivalence pervading the whole of Laurence's work, often expressed in terms of tension between two apparent opposites. Lucking, who is a professor of English at the University of Lecce in Italy, continues to participate in the conversation about Canadian literature on both sides of the Atlantic- itself a dialectical activity of sorts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicTranslation Studies and Practices→French-language works237,207→