Folklore in the United States and Canada: An Institutional History.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Folklorists have studied the heritage and genealogy of various communities, so it is only fitting that a new history of the field of North American folkloristics should examine the genealogy of folklorists.While not quite a "biography" of the field, the 26 discrete articles in Folklore in the United States and Canada: An Institutional History, edited and with an introduction and conclusion by Patricia Sawin and Rosemary Lévy Zumwalt, examine the evolution and history of folkloristics as it evolved in 24 (mostly) graduate programs in American and Canadian colleges and universities.The volume's articles are divided into three sections.The first explores programs that emerged prior to the 1960s; the second looks at the prospering of folklore programs in the 1960s and 1970s, primarily at public Canadian and American universities.This section begins with a nostalgic article by Zumwalt on "'The Great Team' of American Folklorists: Characters Large in Life and Grand in Plans," in which she looks at the "young Turks" who became the "founding fathers" of the field in the 1960s (Stith Thompson, Richard Dorson, Alan Dundes, Dan Ben-Amos et al.).The collegiality and collaboration (in spite of some notable rivalries) that built the field emerge clearly in her essay.She points out that the team of American folklorists "did not develop from one center outward but was an interconnected flow of people and ideas among centers of folklore," each strengthening the others and being strengthened in turn (72).The third section looks at the period of innovation, reshaping, and diversity from 1980 to 2010.Thus, program descriptions run the gamut from the academic degree program in folklore and mythology at Harvard, established in 1967 by Albert Bates Lord (written by Rachel Kirby and Anthony Bak Buccitelli) to the recently founded (2007) community-oriented program in cultural sustainability at Goucher College (Amy E. Skillman and Rory Turner).The essays reveal an enormous variety in program structures: while some folklore programs are based in a department or institute of their own, others have found a home in related disciplinary departments (notably languages, ethnology, anthropology) and interdisciplinary programs (regional and area studies).None of the essays is long, yet each provides detailed documentation about the people who created the programs and taught in them, the challenges they faced, and the accomplishments they achieved.Many photographs of leaders in the field enhance the volume.No less important, the essays provide practical hints about how to win friends within the institution, get support from colleagues at other academic centers, engage in strategic thinking about program building, and negotiate with one's own administration for a place in the curriculum.
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 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,028 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 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 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 ».