MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391598928 · doi:10.3366/mclc.2023.0038

“A Wider and Stranger Space”: World Literature and World-building in Xue Yiwei’s Fiction

2023· article· en· W4391598928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pamela Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Chinese Literature and Culture · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJapanese History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)ArtHistoryLiteratureAestheticsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through references to Xue Yiwei’s (1964–) emigration to Canada, the translation of his works into English, and his repeated discussion of Western authors, the majority of critics have emphasized Xue’s global outlook. However, to date, there has been relatively little discussion of the ways in which his engagement with the world has shaped his writing. This article considers how Xue Yiwei attempts to “transcend the boundaries of language” and create what he calls a “wider and stranger space for literature” against the background of a historically fraught relationship between Chinese and World literature. What does this space look like? Where can we locate it in relation to China and in relation to the world? How does Xue attempt to shape this space through his writing? This article considers these questions from three angles: Xue’s repeated use of explicit intertextuality, the multilingual and polyphonic nature of his writing, and the way in which his books have circulated beyond China. Despite continuing unevenness in the global literary field, this article argues for points of creative agency in Xue Yiwei’s attempt to “dialogue with the world.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Chinese Literature and CultureSame topicJapanese History and CultureFrench-language works237,207