Cultural studies highlighted at the Comparative Literature Conference in Brazil : UCLAS reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scale of the conference was shown by the fact that more than 1 300 papers were presented. The majority of participants came from the host country, Brazil. As Brazil has 27 States (provinces), there were representatives from different regions and backgrounds. The other countries represented were: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, India, Italy, Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, South Africa (represented by myself), Spain, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela (18 countries in all). This is unsurprising, given that the biennial Congress of Abralic is the most important and all-embracing event in the area of comparative literature and criticism organized in Brazil. It serves as a forum for dialogue between Brazilian, Latin American, North American, European and other researchers in the field coming to grips with topical issues and problems. The aim of this particular congress was to debate important contemporary issues, such as identity; as a consequence of globalization, identities can be said to be less monolithic, leading to fragmentation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".