Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter documents and analyzes the contribution of anthologists to the anthologizing process of Black Canadian literature from the 1970s to the present. This chapter situates the discussion in the absence of blackness in mainstream Canadian literature anthologies of the period, offering a rationale for this absence by virtue of a code, a way of reading that determines acceptance as to whether a work is Canadian literature that is mapping a national consciousness through a national convention. More than documenting the timeline of the publications, the discussion offers a glimpse into the intent of each anthology from the perspective of the anthologists. In capturing their voices, this chapter provides a more intimate discussion and overview of the anthologizing process, showcasing what each anthologist perceived as hurdles or moments of pride in their contribution. This chapter provides more of a spirit in reading about the evolution of the anthologizing journey, rather than a chronological documentation with no interest in or focus on what the needs of Black literary communities might have been at the time of publication. This chapter refuses the absented voices of the anthologists that is a distinct feature of most existing secondary material that has covered this topic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".