MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241721653 · doi:10.1017/9781787443921.002

Introduction

2018· book-chapter· en· W4241721653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Éva Gruber, Caroline Rosenthal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Points of Departure MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS AGO—in 1985—Reingard M. Nischik coedited a book that, despite its modest title Gaining Ground , was in fact ground breaking . It blazed a trail for Canadian Literary Studies in Europe while the field back home was still in the process of becoming part of the institutional grid. The volume, which Nischik co-edited with the renowned Canadian author and scholar Robert Kroetsch, brought together seventeen European critics from seven countries and provided insights on topics ranging from Canadian Postmodernism to “Found” Poetry. While the main thrust of the book was comprised of in-depth studies of individual Canadian authors and their works, its second part, written by Reingard Nischik, assessed the state of Canadian Studies in Europe by giving an overview of academic activities and publications as well as programs and institutions focusing on Canadian Literature in European countries. Nischik's first stocktaking laid the groundwork for much subsequent research in European Canadian Studies and became a milestone that is still frequently referenced today, see, for instance, Beyond “Understanding Canada”: Transnational Perspectives on Canadian Studies (Tanti et al., 2017). Nischik's motivation was “to make better known to an international audience how [and to what extent] Canadian literature is treated in Europe” (Kroetsch and Nischik 1985, 250). And indeed, Gaining Ground achieved in Europe what Margaret Atwood's Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature (1972) did in Canada: it put Canadian Literature on the map and charted the territory of what was at the time still shaky ground. The book was greeted enthusiastically on both sides of the Atlantic and considered “a breakthrough in the academic acceptance of Canadian literary studies abroad” (Keith 1986, 158). Not only did it testify to the quality of work European scholars had done on Canadian literature; it also made its Canadian readers reflect on their own creative and critical practices and traditions. Frank Moher thus considered it “an engrossing, and exotic, exercise in seeing ourselves as others see us” (1986, 44), while Renate Usmiani urged: “The book should make Canadian scholars sit up and take notice” (1986, 236). Such Canadian self-consciousness and (literary) soul searching, although even more dominant in the 1960s and ‘70s, was still paradigmatic for the time of Gaining Ground 's publication— and is not surprising given the comparatively recent emergence and institutionalization of both Canadian literature as such and Canadian Studies as a field.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4070.233

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicShort Stories in Global Literature→French-language works237,207→