MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128927488 · doi:10.1093/ywes/maaf111

Chapter XVII. New Literatures

2025· article· en· W7128927488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Talia E. Crockett, Dougal McNeill

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Year s Work in English Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicJoseph Conrad and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSkepticismRhetoricReading (process)Interpretation (philosophy)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most interesting work in Canadian literature in 2023 applied a sceptical pressure to both the adjecive and the noun. What work does ‘literature’ do, and where—and what—is Canada? Margery Fee and Deanna Reder, in their chapter ‘First Peoples, Indigeneity, and Teaching Indigenous Writing in Canada’ (pp. 60-79), part of the book Decolonizing the English Literary Curriculum, edited by Ato Quayson and Ankhi Mukherjee, [2023], ask what it ‘would mean for us as scholars of literary studies to read and teach literature as if our central social ethic, our most important value, was that there was no separation between people and nature?’ (p. 62). How might we study literatures from the state called Canada, there and elsewhere, in such a way ‘that the responsibilities embedded in relationships should come first’ (p. 65)? Their challenge to ‘those of us’, such as the writer of this section, ‘who teach literature in the standard low-context classroom, which could be anywhere’ prompts us to ‘rethink the idea of setting’ (p. 62). Their own work does that in a series of short but suggestive entries on positioning ourselves as scholars; knowing the limitations of our discipline; learning to recognize the tensions between ‘school way’ (p. 64) academic rhetoric and Indigenous forms of knowledge; ‘reading on the edges, reading from here’ (p. 69); and Indigenous interpretation and pedagogy. Fee and Reder offer reflections on teaching that work equally as guides to writing and research. Who is producing it, from where, to and for whom and in what forms of dialogue? Deanna Reder’s own Autobiogaphy as Indigenous Intellectual Tradition: Cree and Métis âcimisowina [2022] is a good example of the kind of insights generated when these questions are posed. Reacting against the reduction of Indigenous traditions to oral traditions only, Reder thinks with how she comes from ‘oral and literary cultures, even if this writing hasn’t made it to the libraries or into school curriculum yet’ (p. 133). Core definitional terms in her study, then, are always in contest: published and unpublished, literary and historical, archival and public, oral and written. The results are exciting. Blending and combining personal memoir, archival research, literary close reading and intellectual history, Reder pays particular attention to the sustaining, innovative and critical work personal stories provide in Indigenous intellectual traditions. The importance of Maria Campbell’s Halfbreed [1973] to the author’s own mother prompts wider thinking on autobiography and an argument that ‘Indigenous autobiographies are not examples of a European literary genre that has mutated to adapt to the life stories of Indigenous authors, but are instead examples of vibrant, innovative Indigenous intellectual production’ (p. 29). Reder’s individual case studies cover thinkers as diverse as Maria Campbell, Edward Ahenakew, James Brady, Absolom Halkett and Harold Cardinal. The study is wrapped up in personal stories that gives its intellectual contribution a grounding in a particular somewhere and someone of the kind Fee and Reder’s chapter challenges from us all. From another angle, Sarah Hernandez’s We are the Stars: Colonizing and Decolonizing the Oceti Sakowin Literary Tradition [2023] challenges ‘Canadian’ and ‘literature’ too, its intellectual frame (the Oceti Sakowin literary tradition) refusing the boundary of the forty-ninth parallel, and its literary-critical formation leaving open and (deliberately) unresolved questions and controversies around translation, negotiation and meaning-making with crucial terms. Hernandez shows how scholarship need not, and ought not, always mean a desire for mastery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.020

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Year s Work in English StudiesSame topicJoseph Conrad and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207