Notice bibliographique
Résumé
English Studies is the broad disciplinary grouping that encompasses all literary and cultural production in the English language – all forms of literature, certainly, but also literary theory and often even non‐literary forms of cultural production such as film and television. The discipline is staffed by members of the professoriate who make up “the Academy,” a self‐regulating group which also includes noted writers, literary publishers, and other literary opinion makers such as reviewers. While there is nothing official about it (unlike L'Académie française, responsible for ruling on the French language), the uncompromising singularity of the term “Academy” acknowledges its power in adjudicating the canon. The canon of texts that comprise the objects of study in English Studies – what is most often read and taught and studied and written about – is (more or less) selected by the Academy. The Academy does evolve, if slowly: people retire, once junior graduate students become faculty members, and the institutional interests of departments of English Studies shift (often, at the behest of academic administrators). Over the twentieth century, the English canon has changed dramatically in an attempt to take into account questions of politics as well as aesthetics. In the context of World Literature and its subfield World Fiction, it could be said that the main project of the introduction of this subject into the bastion of English Studies has been to remake the discipline in the light of critical theory – especially of postcolonialism. Where postcolonial theory provides a framework for what Robert Young calls a “more engaged politics with objectives of social justice and equality … inspired by memories of resistance,” World Literature often provides the literary (and cultural) texts for this study (166). As grand as postcolonialism's purpose is and infinite as this literature appears, there are some limiting parameters. Although fiction is the most widely read and studied postcolonial genre, World Fictionwritten in Englishis nonetheless an altogether smaller sampling thanallWorld Literature, which at its broadest includes other languages and genres. Fiction identified as British, Irish, or American (and thus more likely to be part of the traditional canon) may also be exempt – because the word “World” when used to delimit English‐language literature or fiction connotes texts that do not originate in the United Kingdom or the United States. In general, then, and not excluding many exceptions, since the “origin” of writing is often the subject of debate, English‐language fiction produced in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean (mostly but not exclusively in nations once colonized by Britain) and in the former settler colonies of Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand may be termed “World Fiction in English.”
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,212 | 0,066 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».