Canadian Literary Identity Revisited: A Multicultural and Feminist Approach to the Novel in English until the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sara Jeannette Duncan’s The Imperialist, published in 1904, did not gain a place in the Canadian canon until reprinted in 1961. From 1904 to 1769, year of publication of Frances Brooke’s The History of Emily Montague –arguably the first Canadian novel in English– we find “other” writers who have been “silenced” by Canadian criticism. Canadian literary identity, paradoxically claiming to be multicultural and non-patriarchal, has been in fact configurated as monolithic based mainly on a centre/margin dichotomy and a Eurocentric politics of inclusion/exclusion. Therefore, many writers have been ignored by major critical trends because of an apparent lack of literariness. Although some critics are working to open up the possibilities of a renewed analysis of recent Canadian literary works, less has been said about early writing. As Lorraine McMullen points out, English Canadian women and “minority” novelists before the twentieth century were not only “...a marginalized sex [or “minority”] working in a marginalized genre in a marginalized colonial culture” (McMullen 1990, 59), but have been later made “invisible” by the Canadian literary canon. Thus, this revision of early Canadian novels in the light of a multicultural and feminist approach is meant to reconsider Canada’s literary identity and celebrate early writers as contributors in its shaping. REFERENCES McMullen, Lorraine. Re(dis)covering Our Foremothers. Ottawa: Ottawa UP, 1990.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.064 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".