MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234370474 · doi:10.3138/cras-s035-02-01

Introductory Notes. Memory Foretelling the Story: Essays on Fall on Your Knees

2005· article· en· W4234370474 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sara Matthew, Trish Sala, Dina Georgis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityEpistemologyThe ImaginaryDialogicNeutralityPostmodernismSociologyIdentity (music)NarrativeAestheticsPhilosophyPsychoanalysisLinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I In an essay that sketches a postmodern geography of western racisms, ethnicities, and identities, Ali Rattansi sets out to challenge the constancy of representational narratives of self and identity that foreground the coherent and rationalist archetypes of moder­nist discourses. Disrupting the conscious logic of intention and rationality, Rattansi posits the imaginary space of the psychic as an orientation from which unconscious desires, splitting, disavowal, identifications, and ambivalence blur the boundaries between one person’s end and another’s beginning. Confronted with the interminable task of self-definition in uncertain times, ‘‘difference’’ helps to set the limits between self and another, policing the recognizable (and not-so-recognizable) periphery of that which is not ‘I.’ Difference lays the groundwork for subjectivity by ‘‘precar­iously identifying where the ‘I’ ends and unknowable other begins’’ (Pellegrini 7). In a critique of the ‘‘endlessly expanding enumeration of difference’’ that gestures toward an infinite, yet impossible, politics of inclusion, Ann Pellegrini asks, ‘‘Where and when does this catalogue of identificatory markers end, if it does? And what is the relation between and amongst them?’’ (2). The relations between and amongst differences, relations for which an additive logic provides no palliative, might be sought after by asking another kind of question: What difference does difference make? This is a central question of Ann-Marie MacDonald’s novel, Fall on Your Knees. . Canadian Reviewof American Studies/Revuecanadienne d’e¤ tudesame¤ ricaines 35, no. 2, 2005 The articles in this special issue address the practice of reading literature as a dialogic encounter that elaborates the ways in which the self makes identifications in difference. This kind of reading practice asks how the unconscious is implicated in the work of reading and retains a curiosity about the kinds of insights that might unfold in reading resistance analytically: as symptomatic, for example, of the psychical conflicts that constitute the grounds of relationality. To work at the level of the psychoanalytic is to work, writes Frantz Fanon, ‘‘at the level of failures,’’ of breakdown as well as breakthrough (23). The dynamics of disengagement as well as those of engagement may be important to a theory of what it means to learn across difference. Can the conflicts and attach­ments made in the practice of reading say something about how we imagine the social? What kinds of fantasies and desires do we bring to the project of reading and what kinds of relationships do we have with texts? How do ambivalence and identification figure the constellation of history, identity, and the possibility of something new? These and other questions might be posed as questions of pedagogy, as troubling the ways in which the self becomes educated in and across difference.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.016

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207