Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a detailed critical reading of Bernice Morgan’s Random Passage, a novel about nineteenth century Newfoundland. It focuses particularly on the book’s lexical and grammatical choices, and explores how novelistic style functions rhetorically to construct an aesthetic of the mundane. The author then considers how a novel, especially one that performs a style of the mundane, can be thought of as liminoid festival space and how it might encourage communitas or a shared reading that “bring[s] about a temporary reconciliation among conflicting members of a single community” (Turner 1982:21). She argues that the novel, finally, can be read through the communal eyes of tourist desire, a stance that ultimately replicates, rather than subverts, existing attitudes towards place, particularly nostalgic understandings of history. A shared understanding of Newfoundland as a leisure space, as a tourist space, affects how readers, both local and non-local, read and value Random Passage. The author argues that particularly at a time of depopulation, unemployment, and resource depletion, a style of the mundane — one achieved through lexical choice, grammar, and narrative organisation in the novel — constitutes a persuasive means of celebrating the province together.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".