Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: O conceito sobre o termo relativamentre novo, “cosmopolitismos vernaculares”, identifica as responsabilidades e os contextos globais ao mesmo tempo que reconhece que eles estão sempre enraizados e enredados em interesses locais, os quais incluem os grupos minoritários que competem dentro da nação. Este artigo examina o termo “europeu” com o objetivo de desnudar os debates revisionistas sobre o cosmopolitismo, especialmente em relação aos “cosmopolitismos vernaculares” que funcionam como uma maneira de incluir os “cosmopolitismos subalternos” por meio da desagregação do cosmopolitismo, num movimento análogo à noção de “processo democrático agnóstico” de Stuart Hall. O paradoxo da frase acima reflete o movimento duplo desses debates: no termo cunhado por Homi Bhabha o “doméstico” ou “nativo” vernacular está sempre em uma relação dialógica com a “ação a distância” do cosmopolitismo global. Exploro essa dinâmica ao focalizar os significados discrepantes de “europeu” e dos termos a ele associados. Neste artigo, meu argumento central é: os termos “oeste” e “europeu” devem ser desconstruídos para que não possam mais ser invocados, nos debates pós-coloniais, como incontestáveis categorias heurísticas como, por exemplo, o “oeste e o resto.” Os novos debates sobre cosmopolitismo abrem caminho para se reconhecer, como estados-nação e como parte da União Europeia, a heterogeneidade cultural de tais entidades geopolíticas. Reconhecer o cosmopolitismo dos grupos subalternos facilita esse empreendimento e ajuda a restabelecer uma perspectiva “planetária.”Palavras-chave: cosmopolitismo; diáspora; Austrália.Abstract: The concept of the relatively new term “vernacular cosmopolitanisms” acknowledges global contexts and responsibilities at the same time that it recognizes that these are always rooted in and permeated by local concerns that include competing minority groups within the nation. This paper examines the term “European” as a way to unpack revisionist debates in cosmopolitanism –specifically, in relation to “vernacular cosmopolitanisms”, which is a way of including “subaltern cosmopolitanisms” by disaggregating cosmopolitanism in ways that echo Stuart Hall’s notion of an “agnostic democratic process.” The paradox of the phrase reflects the double movement of these debates: in Homi Bhabha’s coinage of the term, the vernacular “native” or “domestic” is always in a dialogic relation with the global- cosmopolitan “action at a distance.” I explore this dynamic by focusing on the discrepant meanings of “European” and associated terms. My central argument in this paper is that “European” and the “West” are terms that need to be deconstructed so that they can no longer be invoked as self-evidently heuristic categories in post-colonial debates, for example, the “West and the rest.” The new cosmopolitan debates provide avenues for recognizing the cultural heterogeneity of such geo-political entities as nation-states and the European Union. Recognizing the cosmopolitanism of subaltern groups facilitates this enterprise and helps to reinstate a “planetary” perspective.Keywords: cosmopolitisme; diáspora; Australia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".