Preface and Acknowledgements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book had its genesis in a Standard Research Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.In the earliest phase of this project, our team of English-and French-language literary scholars in New Brunswick took its cue from health researchers in asking a basic, but complex, question about literature: namely, what are the determinants of the literary?Is literature mostly the creation of hypersensitive antennae of the race, as Marshall McLuhan suggested (Gutenberg Galaxy 269), or is the artist enmeshed in social matrices of language, narrative, and history that speak through, and thus index, artistic creation?In the pages that follow, we not only historicize that question and the tensions that follow from it, but also locate its address in distinct periods of New Brunswick literary history.We are concerned primarily with social determinants, the latent complex of forces that contributed to periods of literary ferment or flowering in New Brunswick.To extend the flowering metaphor, we focus less on the smell of the rose, or its sheen, or its symbolic resonance, than we do on the soil it grows in, the water it consumes, the air quality around it, and the attentions of its quirky gardeners.Thus, we are not setting out to describe the manifest components of distinct periods of literary ferment in New Brunswick (key figures and achievements), but to examine the conditions that were in place to enable, stifle, or augment production.In adopting that approach to understanding a provincial culture, we do not imply that social conditions are solely responsible for an artist like Herménégilde Chiasson, or that a straight line can be drawn from social factors
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.337 | 0.159 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".