Wild Words: Essays on Alberta Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
study remains an uphill struggle.The weight of historical prejudice and conventional negativity toward provincial identity in literature is a significant barrier.So the concept of Alberta literature remains contested by other boundary concepts and so becomes a work in progress.This volume is a step on the long road of legitimization.Writers themselves prefer various terms of self-identification that suit their interests, with "Albertan" not high on the list.Likewise, their works of art are always open to numerous overlapping labels, depending on what aspect literary critics are keen on.In an era when poststructuralist, postmodern, and postcolonial thinking continues to be in vogue, though its influence is beginning to wane, the term "Alberta" may seem irrelevant to mainstream criticism.But it is, we would argue, no less "irrelevant" than terms such as "Canadian" and "Prairie" or even "Quebec" literature.Each of these terms needs to be understood as a general context framing numerous cultural grammars and influences that inform a writer's identity.Alberta's contemporary literary house is as dependent on global literary trends, the evolving political economy of the province, and the formative influences of linguistic change and developing critical theories as is any Canadian literature.In the struggle for an Alberta literature, this volume is not blind to the challenges facing the concept.The philosopher Wolfgang Iser, in The Range of Interpretation (2000), states: "The task of interpretation is thus twofold: it has to constitute its subject matter, and it has to furnish understanding of what has been constituted."2 This volume attempts to do both.Future volumes will add to this body of criticism and thereby enhance the validity and viability of the concept of Alberta literature as a field of study.We would like to thank our fellow organisers of the Wild Words conference -poet
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".