MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236027762 · doi:10.1017/ccol0521814413.010

Writing by women

2004· book-chapter· en· W4236027762 on OpenAlex
Coral Ann Howells

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)PopularityPoliticsPublishingHistoryGender studiesEthnic groupMedia studiesLiteratureSociologyPolitical scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Setting down her title” This phrase, taken from a Canadian woman's novel written in the early 1970s, addresses the double issue of women's writing and its relationship to wider feminist questions of women's literary and political entitlement. It also marks a significant starting point for this chapter, which will focus on Canadian women's fiction in English since the late 1960s, the period when Canadian writing achieved high visibility at home and abroad. At the present time Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro, and Carol Shields, who all started publishing in the 1960s and 70s, are names that are synonymous with Canadian writing internationally. In addition, since the early 1990s a constellation of new women writers, including many from a wide range of ethnic and racial backgrounds, has enormously diversified Canada's literary image, and these women's novels and short stories feature in increasing numbers on international publishers' lists. Why should this be? What is so distinctive about these writers? And what factors have contributed to their popularity and visibility?

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.208 · 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