Bibliographic record
Abstract
When we refer to so-called ethnocultural texts as ethnic, minority, and marginal textualities, the invoked, underlining paradigm remains that of "displaced" textuality or, in our case, displaced writing.Of course, the various categories used to classify "other" writings in Canada point to power relations within the system with respect to what is recognized as publishable and worthy of distribution; in other words the canon, which is built upon selflegitimizing writings.Collapsing these categories ethnic, minority, and marginal into the larger category of "displaced writing" allows us to see how specific ethnocultural productions and representations are collocated on the Canadian culturescape network.What remains vibrant in the collapsed form of displaced writing, as lingering categorical resonances, are the conceptual frameworks that signify for ethnic non-founder, for minority subaltern, and finally, for marginal (in)significance.In this formulation then, displaced writing not only encompasses precise historical realities fictionalized in the "other's writing" but also specific nationalcultural constraints, which bind the texts as "acts of disappearance."That is, a transitory quality is bestowed upon displaced writing that is, at best, elusive.Displaced writing is not a point of political vindication; it is instead an ethnocritical reading that can illustrate and foreground, without, the state of the world.Let us not forget, as far as Italian-Canadian literary production is concerned, a definite point on the historical map is marked by the appearance of Roman Candles, the 1978 poetry anthology edited by Pier Giorgio Di Cicco.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".