Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A reader turning to this chapter might ask what part film plays in a history of postcolonial literature, and so it is perhaps necessary to begin by explaining that the focus here is not on postcolonial film per se, but on the relationship between film and writing in postcolonial contexts. A topic as expansive as this makes it impossible to adequately historicize each context; however, the term ‘postcolonial film’, in contrast to the more widely used ‘world cinema’, does provide a sense of historical and thematic scope in that it refers to a form of filmmaking that has been impacted by, or that responds to, colonialism and imperialism. Building on Ato Quayson’s definition of the postcolonial in the introduction to these volumes, this chapter works with the claim that ‘If the wide variety of writing that critics and readers group under the label “postcolonial” has anything in common, it is an awkward reliance on imperial remainders.’ Although film has been introduced in very different ways in different colonial and postcolonial contexts, similarities in motivations and effects may be found. In West Africa in the early 1900s, the French used film as a form of cultural colonization, as a tool within their general policy of assimilation of local people to French ways of life; in India the British exploited the economic potential of film, attempting to inculcate British taste so as to bring large financial returns to the empire; in Mexico, film arrived almost a century after political independence from Spain, when the country was under the dictatorial control of Porfirio Díaz, who did not hesitate to exploit the medium to build his own reputation and enforce his policies and ideologies.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.002 |
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".