MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contesting Epistemological Dependency and Contextualising Space: A Postcolonial Critique of Margaret Atwood’s Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature

2015· article· en· W4302391249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Samuel Rufus

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-Currents An International Peer-Reviewed Journal on Humanities and Social Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrideSpace (punctuation)MetaphorIdentity (music)Postcolonial literatureAestheticsSociologySalientGender studiesEpistemologyHistoryLawPhilosophyPolitical scienceLinguisticsColonialism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival, on its first publication in the year 1972, was hailed as “a ground-breaking study of archetypal patterns” in Canadian Literature. One of the salient features of the book is its emphasis on contextualising Canadian literature in a space of its own, through an intrinsic study of its patterns, images and motifs. Space was celebrated as a source of pride by Canadians. To Atwood, Space hence, becomes a metaphor of the postcolonial literary landscape, wherein lies the inherent source of strength and pride of the Canadian writer, and therefore should be reclaimed or conquered from the imperialist onslaught. Therefore by advocating the need for an authentic Canadian literature that effectively expresses the Canadian identity and its cultural survival against the imperial cultural onslaught, Atwood argues for a postcolonial space or a space of intervention that not only challenges epistemological dependency, but also helps create positive new identities by writing back to the centre, and thereby negating the indebtedness of colonised peoples to colonisers‟ discursive constructions and modes of thinking

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-Currents An International Peer-Reviewed Journal on Humanities and Social SciencesSame topicShort Stories in Global LiteratureFrench-language works237,207