MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098056728

SOURCES OF UKRAINIAN CANADIAN IDENTITY IN JANICE KULYK KEEFER´S NOVEL THE GREEN LIBRARY

2016· article· en· W7098056728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComparative and World Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)Theme (computing)Identity formationUkrainianCultural identityImmigration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present thesis discusses the sources of Ukrainian-Canadian identity based on Janice Kulyk Keefer´s novel The Green Library. The chief aim of the thesis is to try to understand what identity is, how one can identify oneself in terms of culture, and most importantly, what methods are available for this as well as what influences the choice of the methods. The Green Library represents the experience of the second generation Ukrainian immigrants who are struggling with their identity formation. The novel has been chosen as a perfect example to explore these identity issues. The Green Library presents contrasting approaches to the concept of identity. As a result, the main characters of the novel have different strategies of acculturation. These diverse strategies are discussed in greater detail. The thesis shows that identity cannot exist on its own, but it is influenced by various factors and formed in the process of a series of identifications. The present thesis consists of four parts: the introduction, two chapters and the conclusion. The introduction states the importance of the theme to be discussed. It raises the questions about identity formation and the sources of identity to be answered in this

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComparative and World LiteratureFrench-language works237,207