Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canadian horror film is one of those strange phenomena that seem incongruent with the cultural sensibilities from which it emerged, and has remained veritably hidden beneath the dominant American horror cinema industry that it mimics and infiltrates. Much to the surprise of many horror aficionados, however, it not only exists, but maintains a canon of celebrated cinematic texts and its own set of critical concerns. Typically, in the context of its ostensible ‘Canadianness’, it has been interpreted in terms of its nationalist sensibilities and its subversion of American conventions. But is there a set of anxieties hidden within these narratives that are peculiar to the nebulous concept of Canadian culture? This question might be answered in part through an examination of popular Canadian horror films and the critical literature that forms the discourse surrounding them. However, while Canadian horror film is astonishingly prolific beyond the expectations of the layman cinema fanatic, and the otherwise strange nature of its existence, the academic discourse surrounding Canadian horror cinema is embarrassingly scant, although refreshingly intelligent and accessible. This survey of some of the more salient texts proffers a strong case for the entertainment value-added with intelligent enquiry and analysis with its own critical taxonomy of the texts. Combining fascinating cinema with good reading, the survey inherently encourages readers from a range of lifestyles and disciplines to discover an intertextual entertainment within both the frequently under-appreciated films they discuss, and the entertainingly intelligent and revelatory texts themselves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".