Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speaking of the lack of historical fiction during the flourishing of Canadian literature in the 1960 s, Margaret Atwood recently observed that the writers of that generation "were instead taken up by the momentous discovery that we ourselves existed, in what was then the here and now, and we were busily exploring the implications of that." 1 Since that time, however, writing about history has been a tremendously important part of Canadian literature's proliferation and growing popularity.If the writers of the 60 s were obsessed with the here and now, contemporary Canadian historical novelists have been engaged in coming to terms with both the present and the past.The question posed by Northrop Frye and echoed by Atwood in Survival , "where is here?"has been extended to "what is now and where did it come from?"Robert Kroetsch once observed that "we haven't got an identity until somebody tells our story.The fiction makes us real." 2 Contemporary Canadian historical novels can be seen as an important extension of that narrating into existence, but one that also inscribes a recognition of the problems with such an identity-making process and with notions of the real.They reflect a confidence not in fiction's ability to provide the stuff of the past, but in the past's ability to provide the stuff of fiction.The title of this book, Speculative Fictions: Contemporary Canadian Novelists and the Writing of History , was suggested by the recurring characterization of the historical novel as a mirror image or inversion of science fiction.3 Such an image goes against the common assumption that because history is, well, in the past, it is somehow much more
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.501 | 0.251 |
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".