Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical Perspectives on David Chariandy explores the fiction written by this Caribbean Canadian writer to bring new perspectives to the existing scholarship on memory, history, trauma, myth, second-generation issues, cultural inheritance and transmission. The works presented in this collection about Chariandy’s novels Soucouyant and Brother consider new aspects and bring a fresh gaze to themes that have previously been explored. Critical Perspectives on David Chariandy presents second-generation Caribbean Canadian cultural affiliation to the Caribbean and North America as an outcome of a self-managed reparatory postcolonial aural transmission. It brings a new exploration of relationships between dementia, animality, forgetting, transformation, and identity, as well as an original analysis of the implications and stakes raised by Canadian middlebrow reception of Soucouyant in 2007. The new readings of Chariandy’s exploration of the relationship between history, memory, and myth, included in this collection, disclose the stakes and scope of the author’s use of the myth of the soucouyant, and of the mythologies of Scarborough and Canada. This collection also approaches Soucouyant as the literary form of a process of searching for healing that operates both at personal and collective levels, demonstrating the author's use of different types of memories for healing power.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".