Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the publication of my 1985 monograph on magic realism and the fantastic, I quickly abandoned the formalist-idealist quest for generic certainty. There were several reasons for this. The first was the continuing proliferation of definitions of magic realism. Another was my increasing interest in critical and theoretical studies on metafiction and narratives usually described as such (Earth, Calvino), in which the literary imagination, unfettered by the constraints of realism, was accompanied by self-reflexive comments on various aspects of the text, as well as on the production and reception of literature and the role of the author and reader. The impossible, improbable or supernatural events were thus explicidy presented as fictitious. My subsequent interest in the postmodernism debate, and then postcolonialism, made me relinquish all attempts at arriving at a satisfactory definition of magic realism, since the same books and literary techniques were variously termed magic realist, metafictional, postmodern or even postcolonial — and each of these concepts was equally vague and controversial in itself. Most of Linda Hutcheon's observations in her various studies on the poetics of postmodernism, for example, would apply to narratives considered as magic realist. Finally, postmodern theory had made me increasingly suspicious of taxonomic fervor in literary criticism. The Foucauldian emphasis on the constructed nature of the object of knowledge removed the foundations of any strict generic typology. Studying a certain number of narratives intuitively considered magic realist, determining their defining characteristics, sufficient and essential, and then using this construct to include or exclude other texts, appeared to me as a pleasant, but somewhat idle, enterprise, far less useful and exciting than the emerging interdisciplinary debates on postcolonialism, subalternity, identity, alterity and cultural studies. Magic realism had thus
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".