Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migration to England has been a better-known context for the development of Caribbean writing, but migration to Canada also shaped the region’s literary history during this period. The Windrush generation that went to England in the 1950s interacted in important ways with Canada; on the one hand, there was a parallel migration of Caribbean people and writers to Canada during this period, while on the other hand, many of the writers who first went to England visited Canada and some later relocated to Canada. This migratory experience complicated the idea of Caribbean writing as responding primarily to a British metropole and offered different ways of thinking about blackness, exile, diaspora, and belonging. Although it is Toronto that has become the major hub for Caribbean artistic activity in Canada, Montréal was an important meeting point during this period and in 1968 was the venue for the Congress of Black Writers which brought together luminaries, writers, and activists from the region, the USA, and Africa in the context of the Black Power movement. The Caribbean demographic in Canada was affected in the 1950s and 1960s by the Canadian government’s recruitment of officially ‘single’ women as domestic workers and later by significant numbers of Caribbean nationals of Indian as well as African descent. An important issue is how the migratory demographic affected the writing during the period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.331 | 0.073 |
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".