MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4236977462 · doi:10.1353/eam.2018.0023

Author

2018· article· en· W4236977462 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph Rezek

Notice bibliographique

RevueEarly American studies · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMeaning (existential)LiteraturePrint culturePower (physics)HistoryIndividualismSociologyArtPhilosophyLawEpistemologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Author Joseph Rezek KEY WORDS History of Authorship, African American Literature, Black Atlantic, Early American Literature, John Marrant, Early American Print Culture, African American Print Culture, Book History, Textual History, Race, History of Print, Religion, Slavery, George Whitefield, Selina Hastings, the Countess of Huntingdon The author is not dead, for book historians, but she has been desacralized. From the Latin auctor—one who approves or sanctions, provides evidence or expertise; a prime mover; a progenitor of a race or nation; or one who creates a work of art—the English term author came to signify the sole originator of a literary text long after its association with God, the “Author of Nature.”1 Its literary meaning acquired a hallowed, quasi-mythological connotation only after the mutual imbrication of bourgeois individualism, professional authorship, and proprietary copyright in the eighteenth century. It was the modern, deified Author (capital “A”) that Roland Barthes sought to demystify. “We know now that the text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God), but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.”2 Writing in Barthes’s immediate wake, Michel Foucault defined authorship exclusively through its function in discourse.3 These famous refusals of an author’s originating power and autonomy remain influential in literary studies. They also helped legitimize book history’s commitment to embedding authors within a “communications circuit,” a “field of cultural production,” or other contingent historical, personal, and economic relationships.4 And yet most book historians believe, contra Barthes and Foucault, that authors (lowercase “a”) play active if not [End Page 599] autonomous roles in constructing their texts. Authors, for us, are historical actors who compose texts, not works of mystical genius; they are embedded in and susceptible to historically specific circumstances and influences; they are directly beholden to the numerous individuals who control and distribute media technology (and not only print); and they are just as strategic in their navigations of the world of media and communication as any of their equally historically embedded and actively engaged readers. Despite this general commitment to author-as-actor, one Foucauldian insight continues to resonate. The “author function,” Foucault writes, “does not affect all discourses in the same way at all times and in all types of civilization.”5 This has been especially generative for early Americanists, who have labored to differentiate the story of authorship in early North America from familiar European narratives. They have emphasized early America’s fragmented and provincial print industry; its dependence on trans-Atlantic material, interpersonal, and cultural networks; the absence of copyright monopolies; indigenous media practices; and the consequences of slavery, settler colonialism, radical Protestantism, and republicanism. A unique picture of early American authorship has emerged from all this. Important studies have considered oral, non-alphabetic, and community-oriented authorship in Native American materials (Weaver, Round, Cohen, Mt. Pleasant et al.); the mutual imbrication of literary authorship and provincial moral and social life (Amory and Hall); the performative aspects of Puritan authorship (Neuman); the anonymity and pure negativity of republican authorship (Warner); African American participation in and resistance to dominant modes of white authorship (Foster, Brooks, Cohen and Stein); the belated rise of professional authorship (Charvat); the rise of female authors, especially in the nineteenth century (Kelley, Homestead); the persistence of amateur authorship (Jackson); and antipathies to authorship itself as a rubric for organizing literary culture (McGill).6 [End Page 600] While enumerating such distinctiveness, early Americanists have also attended to the way authors faced conditions not all that different from those in Europe—with a shared technology of the letterpress, a print culture similarly affected by orality and manuscript practices, and a media landscape shaped by some of the same cultural, economic, and ideological forces. John Marrant’s A Narrative of the Lord’s Wonderful Dealings (1785) is both distinctively American—composed by a member of the African diaspora who lived in the colonies—and materially European, as it was a popular religious pamphlet published in London. This makes it an ideal text to help us think about the meaning of the keyword author in early American studies...

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,641
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,000

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,6410,564

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEarly American studiesMême sujetPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesTravaux en français237 207