MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557787971

Comparative literature in an age of Globalization: A Review

2011· review· en· W1557787971 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann Rigney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian review of comparative literature · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWritGlobalizationTheme (computing)Reading (process)SociologyState (computer science)Repetition (rhetorical device)LiteratureHistoryMedia studiesLawClassicsLinguisticsPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bylaws of the American Literature Association stipulate the writ-ing every ten years of on the of the The present collection Literature in an Age of Globalization represents the latest in the series and is a follow up to Charles Bernheimer's Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism (1994). The structural similarities between the two titles, with their repetition of Comparative Literature in the âge of is striking, and I will corne back toit. The nineteen essays in the collection hâve been written by a team of eminent scholars and they respond not only to Bernheimer's collection and to the general theme of globalization but also to each other. The resuit is an interesting series of kaleidoscopic interventions, some highly readable and pulling lots of punch; others less user-friendly and, in attempting to arise to the occasion, somewhat convoluted and over-written. Granted: the report is a very awkward genre for which there are no rules and, given this need to improvise, the editer Haun Saussy has made a good job of providing a nuanced and multiperspectival account of the state of the discipline. It would hâve enhanced the impact of the present volume, however, had it been at times less an inward looking colloquy among seniors and more inviting to the as-yet not initiated graduate student. As it is, it makes very interesting reading for the diehard senior member of staff (and presumably the members of the ACL A) while being less accessible to the future scholar or to those working in other disciplines and interested in finding out what Literature stands for, where it is going to, and why it might be important.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0180.043
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian review of comparative literatureSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207