Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is not strictly academic.What I hope to foster is a discussion of the images created by a group of writers who have in common their identity as Italian Canadians, and who have written novels set within this cultural milieu.Like portraits in a gallery of diverse artists, the images of women we see in their writing vary in distinctiveness, detail, and purpose.What do we, the readers, expect when we enter the gallery, that is, when we pick up the book?Do we have an image in mind against which the text will be measured?Perhaps we are beginning with the Mona Lisa, the timeless, classic features of serene beauty concealing emotion, sensuality under control.Or we do imagine that the woman in black, the Nonna sitting beside us on the bus, is the figure we will encounter on the page?What about the gifted artist?The honored community leader?The housewife?Will we see ourselves?In short, do we pick up the book with a stereotype in mind before we open the cover?I ask that question to draw the audience into the tension that exists right now between Italian Canadian writing and its sociological context.The community is present and distinct; the writers are also distinct among their contemporaries.The images ring true, but they are not to be taken as limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".