MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241754197 · doi:10.1353/jeu.0.0004

Texts

2010· article· fr· W4241754197 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mavis Reimer

Bibliographic record

VenueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunctuationSubtitleIdeologySubject (documents)Object (grammar)Relation (database)LinguisticsSociologyHistoryLiteratureComputer scienceArtLibrary sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Texts Mavis Reimer The change of the name of this journal from Canadian Children's Literature/Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesse to Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures in 2009 was the subject of many hours of discussion by the editorial and advisory boards. Among the questions we debated were the gains and losses in dropping the national descriptor of the journal, the best way to indicate that we intended to continue to publish in two languages, the implications of substituting the term "young people" for "children," and the grammatical relation implied by the order and punctuation of the three terms of our subtitle. The choice to replace "literature/littérature" with "texts," however, occasioned little controversy: it seemed obvious to us that texts was a more open and flexible category, one which formally signals our intention to work within a cultural-studies framework and our welcome of the submission of essays on a wide range of literary, media, and cultural objects and forms. But, if the obvious is typically a rich site for investigation, as ideological critics have demonstrated, then it seems useful to unpack the term to which we so readily agreed.1 The shift in literary studies from the common usage of literature to the common usage of texts to describe the object of study is registered in the different choices made by Raymond Williams in Keywords (1976) and by Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, and Meaghan Morris in New Keywords (2005): literature appears as a main entry and there is no entry for text in the 1976 "vocabulary of culture and society," while the opposite is true of the 2005 reference work. Williams explains in his 1976 entry that the word literature came into English "in the sense of polite learning through reading" in the fourteenth century (184). Since the eighteenth century, however, the history of the word has involved "a steady distinction and separation" of "well-written books of an imaginative or creative kind" from "other kinds of writing—philosophy, [End Page 1] essays, history, and so on—which may or may not possess literary merit or be of literary interest," as well as from those poems and plays and novels that "are not 'substantial' or 'important' enough to be called works of literature" (186). "Significantly in recent years," he notes in a concluding paragraph, literature and the literary have been "increasingly challenged, on what is conventionally their own ground, by concepts of writing and communication which seek to recover the most active and general senses which the extreme specialization had seemed to exclude" (187). Terry Threadgold's entry for text in New Keywords makes it clear that the challenge glimpsed by Williams was, indeed, consequential and far-reaching: not only are "all genres of writing" now referred to as texts "for purposes of analysis" in literary studies, but also "[a]ll of these enterprises are seen as aspects of a general textuality and as forms of textual practice," a category which also includes multimedia cultural texts "in which language is only one dimension" (346). The expanded notion of text, defined by Threadgold as "a pan-disciplinary concept that encompasse[s] any cultural object of investigation" (346), describes the understanding of texts that informs the title of this journal and that is generally used in contemporary international cultural studies. In his 2008 textbook Cultural Studies, Chris Barker observes that "it is an axiom of cultural studies that a text is anything that generates meaning through signifying practices" (490). Barker's gloss on text assumes the framework of semiotics, especially as developed by Roland Barthes in Mythologies (1957). In one of the essays in that collection, Barthes analyzes the court appearance of a farmer who was charged with and convicted of murder, a case in which police, prosecutor, judge, and journalists all concurred in borrowing elements of classical rhetoric and literary [End Page 2] characterizations to describe the man, the event, and the scene of the trial itself. "Literature has just condemned a man to the guillotine" ("Dominici" 43), Barthes concludes, with literature here, as Simon During observes, meaning not just "the literary canon but the conventional system of writing and representation in which the canon remains...

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4510.296

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207