An Aesthetic of Companionship:The Champlain Myth inEarly Canadian Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a letter to William Douw Lighthall on November 18, 1888, Charles G.D. Roberts describes the activities at the Haliburton Society at King’s College in Windsor, Nova Scotia. “I talk Canadianism all the time to the members,” he writes. “We have a literary programme, of Canadian color each night, & we smoke, & drink lime juice & raspberry vinegar, all thro[ugh] the meeting. I am sort of permanent Pres[iden]t, as it were” (Collected Letters 96; italics in original). In the letter’s postscript, Roberts asks Lighthall if he would like to join the society and names Bliss Carman as one of its members. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word “Canadianism” first entered into the English language in 1875, and Roberts’ letter to Lighthall indicates that by 1888 it was already the byword of a new literary project—a project that was openly and idealistically nationalistic,1 and, clearly, important both to the acknowledged leader of the Confederation group of poets and to the most important anthologist of Canadian literature in the post-Confederation period. Until the ascension of modernism in Canada and the rise of professionalism, anthologists/literary historians such as Lighthall were enormously influential in determining critical trends, and a nationalistic preoccupation with identifying and promulgating a literary tradition is a salient feature of Canadian literary criticism after Confederation. Roberts’ use of the word “Canadianism” here and again in his next letter to Lighthall where he informs him that at the next meeting of the Haliburton Club (where Lighthall was in fact inducted into the society) he “read a lot from [Lighthall’s] The Young Seigneur—pure Canadianism, & it took hold beautifully” (Collected Letters 98), indicates the importance that both Roberts and Lighthall placed on establishing a Canadian literary tradition immediately after Confederation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.063 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".