Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: Este texto se propõe a discutir o pensamento diferencialista da crítica e da literatura norte-americanas presente no tratamento da alteridade em relação às representações dos mestiços e a mostrar que ele é diferente da lógica universalista brasileira. Muito se falou da ideologia do branqueamento no Brasil, que possibilita a passagem de uma cor/raça a outra, considerada superior. Este fenômeno, chamado de passing em inglês, em que os mulatos/mestiços claros podem ocultar sua origem, mudar de região e se fazer passar por brancos, também existe na América do Norte. Este tema – que aparece em vários romances – é altamente problemático nos dias de hoje, em que as minorias são instadas, pelo pensamento politicamente correto, a se assumir e lutar pelo direito à diferença. Esta visão nega ao personagem do mestiço-quase-branco o direito à singularidade e à construção de uma identidade individual(ista), já que ele deve se inserir sempre no âmbito de uma luta coletiva.Palavras-chave: representação do mestiço; literatura do Canadá; literatura dos Estados Unidos.Résumé: Ce texte se propose à discuter la pensée différencialiste, présente dans la critique et la littérature nord-américaines, laquelle se manifeste dans le traitement de l’altérité des Métis et à démontrer ainsi qu’elle se distingue de la logique universaliste brésilienne. On a beaucoup écrit sur l’idéologie du blanchiment au Brésil, qui rend possible le passage d’une couleur/race à l’autre, considérée supérieure. Ce phénomène, dénommé passing en anglais, par lequel les mulâtres/métis clairs de peau peuvent cacher leur origine, changer de région et se faire passer pour blancs, existe aussi en Amérique du Nord. Ce thème – qui apparaît dans plusieurs romans – est très problématique de nos jours, quand les minorités sont amenées par la pensée de la correction politique à s’assumer et à lutter en faveur du droit à la différence. Cette vision dénie au personnage du métis-presque-blanc le droit à la singularité et à la construction d’une identité individuelle/individualiste puisqu’il doit s’insérer toujours dans le cadre d’une lutte collective.Mots-clés: représentation du Métis; littérature du Canada; littérature des Etats-Unis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".