Italian Canadian Writing and the Canon: Integration or Ghetto-ization?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a title like this, «Italian Canadian Writing and the Canon: Integration or Ghetto-ization» you might well be expecting me to talk about themes of social or cultural integration in Canadian writing by Italians.So, I think I had best make clear from the start that my topic is not, in fact, social (expect in the broadest sense), but rather, is literary historical.In other words, I am interested in where we place an Ardizzi or a Paci in the history of the Canadian novel.I am wondering where we locate a di Michele or a di Cicco in the present state of Canadian poetry.I want to figure out where a Salvatore or a Micone might fit into the development of Canadian drama.So, you see, the integration or ghettoization of my title refers to the positioning of Italian Canadian writing within the literary history of our country, a history I now find myself involved in writing.What I want to do (very briefly) today is attempt to articulate a problem that I am trying to work out in my own research at present, and somewhat less conventionally perhaps for a conference speaker, I want to engage your help in solving that problem.Three years ago, I was asked to write the long chapter on the novel for the next (that is, the fourth) volume of the major reference work of Canadian literature: Literary History of Canada.This volume is to cover the years 1972-1984.After spending these past three years reading literally hundreds and hundreds of Canadian novels in English, my research is (for better or worse) drawing to a closeae
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".