Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionIn 2015, journalist and founder A. J. Jacobs held the first Global Family Reunion in New York City with the intention of highlighting the interrelatedness of the wider human family, in part through establishment of a global family tree linking trees posted on various websites. For two decades, the media have noted the increasing numbers of persons fashioning family trees prompted by, among other things, the aging of baby boomers, a sense of mortality (Wee, 1997, p. Al), a proliferation of Internet genealogy sites, and a growing pride in (Shute, 2002, p. 76). After completion of the mapping of the human genome in 2003, genetic ancestry services also arose, offering stimulating, intriguing, but contentious complements to family history texts and practices, particularly when it comes to race and ethnicity.Some critique genealogy as a limiting, naval-gazing pursuit devoted to, as Saar (2002) cautions, own culture, your milieu, your family, your genus (p. 236). It could preclude a critical posture-an ability to individuate, understand, and cultivate compassion and action in response to the struggles of others. In suggesting that one cannot fully appreciate an individual genealogy without positioning it within a constellation of peoples, eras, and events, the Global Family Reunion stimulates critical possibilities. Labrador and Chilton (2009) attest that genealogy is not only individualized . . . but immersed in the social concepts of geography, demography, citizenship, ethnicity, tourism, and diasporic movements and, thus, be elitist and exclusionary, and/or democratic and inclusionary (pp. 5-6). Moreover, Kuhn (2002) argues that family reminiscences and artifacts allow one to explore connections between 'public' historical events, structures of feeling, family dramas, relations of class, national and gender, and 'personal' memory (p. 5). Two questions arise. How can genealogy texts, services, and practices facilitate intercultural connection and inclusion? Where race and ethnicity are concerned, what are the common pitfalls and how might these texts, services, and practices address them?In this context, the titular expression identity has two meanings: (1) Acquiring new information and insights concerning one's own racial or background that illuminate previous and ongoing struggles; and (2) Interrogating one's racial or identifications, uncovering contextual correspondences with other groups, and cultivating understanding of their historical and/or current circumstances. While a critical genealogy requires both recuperations, those who currently navigate racial or minority status engage in the first recuperation daily. For others whose background does not require sustained negotiation, this recuperation requires new or renewed effort. However, the second recuperation demands such effort of all participants in genealogy culture.This essay cites but proceeds beyond previous research that considers various aspects of identity, especially documentary television series that genealogically profile celebrity or noncelebrity guests (see Scodari, 2013). Focusing on race and ethnicity and applying critical race, postcolonial, and other critical theory, this study considers these and other traditional and digital media narratives relating to genealogy and genetic ancestry.1 It also scrutinizes responses of participants and other practices, such as DNA testing for so-called ethnic ancestry. It draws upon my auto-ethnographic experiences in recuperating my through engagements in/with genealogy websites, DNA testing, family interactions, and family history travel/ As a work of critical media and cultural studies, it taps into interdisciplinary domains such as American, memory, kinship, migration, and heritage studies, as well as disciplines of sociology, education, anthropology, history, genetics, and geography. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».