MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298006074 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14636595.v2

Review: Canadian Dreams

2022· preprint· en· W4298006074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy Johnston

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFantasyHistoryTechno-thrillerArt historyLiteratureLiterary fictionArtMedia studiesSociologyLiterary criticism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Dreams. Edo van Belkom. Northern Dreamers: Interviews with Famous Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Writers. Out of This World Series #4. Ontario: Quarry, 1998. 254 pp. $19.95 CDA; $14.95 USA paper. Dist. in USA by InBook (800-243-0138). This collection of 22 interviews with Canadian sf, fantasy, and horror writers is the first of its kind, and as such it is a valuable guide to the genre in Canada. Edo van Belkom is a professional editor, author of horror fiction, and a Canadian Regional Director of the Science Fiction Writers of America. His familiarity with his interview subjects and the field in Canada is immediately evident. He can be forgiven, then, for the effusive claims he makes for these authors in his introduction. While not all of these writers are "pioneers, leaders, and supreme masters of their realms" of speculative fiction (8), as he suggests, they do represent the leading voices in Canadian speculative fiction. Indeed, most of those included have received international awards, critical and reader acclaim, and some commercial success

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.010

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207