Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Undertow is a novel about the rash actions of a few determined individuals attempting to rescue a group of pit bulls who are being used for dog fighting in the Greater Toronto Area. Through the act of caring for these damaged dogs, the characters are forced up against the traumas that Canadian society as inflicted on them and begin to re-examine the roles that abuse, caregiving and forgiveness have played in their lives and the lives of the dogs they are rehabilitating. The novella is a psychological drama that slowly reveals the ghosts compelling the characters to act, without giving away whether the characters themselves fully comprehend their ghostly motivations. It pursues difficult moral questions through an ethics of care that weaves together an affinity between the human and animal in ways that also push back against that affinity. It is a novella where the silences and unspoken realities are as present and functional as what is articulated and demand equal importance on the page. \n \nThe Undertow is an exploration of the liminal psychological spaces that follow trauma, how the boundaries around these spaces are developed and renegotiated, and the unknowable, ever-shifting interior of the survivor. How do we go about confronting trauma safely? How much do we owe other survivors like us? What is the cost of caretaking, and what do we owe ourselves as caretaking survivors? The novella tackles the complexity of these questions and refuses the neat and satisfying resolutions that flatten the lived experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.016 |
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".