Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writers have always been conscious of and have struggled with the limitations of language, moulding and refining it in order that it might register and convey their experience and their vision.They have struggled as well with the limiting forces which language imposes upon human experiences.To confirm the reality of this kind of struggle known only to the human species, T.S.Eliot has remarked that writers do not borrow, they "steal," in an effort to appropriate the very vehicle which makes self-discovery and self-disclosure possible.Aware of both the tyranny of language and its liberating powers, Eliot went on to elaborate on the power of language on the human un/conscious:No art is more stubbornly national than poetry.A people may have its language taken away from it, suppressed, and another language compelled upon the schools; but unless you teach that people to fee/ in a new language, you have not eradicated the old one, and it will reappear in poetry, which is the vehicle of feeling.!Canadian women writers of Italian origin share with their male counterparts the dilemma of language fraught with the suffering and collected memories of the past.Their writings may be read, appreciated, studied in relation to numerous considerations including linkages with the literature of male writers or with Canadian women writers of other ethnic backgrounds.Their works may also be studied in relation to the fundamental question of ethnicity, that is, if and how they "fit" in the broad landscape of mainstream Canadian literature.Before opening the window on a panoramic view of the writings of Italian Canadian women writers, something must be said in relation to the question of what is
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".