MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410566399 · doi:10.4324/9781003318323

The Routledge Introduction to English Canadian Literature and Digital Humanities

2025· book· en· W4410566399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul M. Barrett, Sarah Roger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital humanitiesHumanitiesLibrary scienceMedia studiesSociologyLinguisticsArtComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Routledge Introduction to English Canadian Literature and Digital Humanities is a guide to the concepts and theories at the intersection of Canadian literary studies and digital humanities (DH). Equal parts theoretical and practical, it focuses on debates that overlap the two domains. This book historicizes the connections between the two by surveying the history of DH in Canada, the tradition of Canadian writers engaging with technology, and DH analyses of Canadian literature. It also situates both CanLit and DH with respect to contemporary concerns about alterity, and it demonstrates how digital technologies allow writers and scholars to intervene in them. This book complements its theoretical discussions with a practical introduction to DH methods. Using Canadian literary texts and examples from projects at the intersection of CanLit and DH, it introduces key DH approaches to novice readers. Topics covered include data collection, data management, and textual analysis, as well as essential DH tools and the Python programming language. A concluding case study guides readers interested in applying the ideas presented throughout.

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)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.022
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.032

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTranslation Studies and Practices→French-language works237,207→