Romantic Ecologies and Colonial Cultures in the British-Atlantic World, 1770-1850
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If it is true that interest in the English Romantics has grown since the rise of ecocriticism as a scholarly endeavor, it is also the case that postcolonial critics have situated the Romantic discourse and poetics in the context of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade.In a study of Romantics of the British transatlantic world, inclusive of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, Kevin Hutchings employs Edward Said's contrapuntal, materialist analytical lens "to open a dialogue between (post) colonial and ecocritical approaches to Romantic scholarship," which sheds light on both aspects of a "culture of mastery." 1 In Romantic Ecologies and Colonial Cultures in the British-Atlantic World, 1770-1850, Hutchings, professor of English and Canada Research Chair in Romantic Studies at the University of Northern British Columbia, builds on, and extends the 1999 work of Alan Bewell's Romanticisn and Colonial Disease, and Beth Fowkes Tobin'
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".