Writing and Portage: The Post-Settlement Novel and the Movement of Things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word “portage” describes both the labor of conveying things from one place to another and the things that merchants and travelers load onto ships and then carry over land when they reach their destination. This image is central to this dissertation, which examines the importance of the British goods that settlers took with them as they sailed to the colonies of Canada, South Africa, and Australia and built new homes and societies. Because these colonies were annexed primarily to enrich British trade, imported things were crucial not only to the physical and emotional lives of isolated and disoriented settlers but also to the ways in which the colonies came to imagine themselves and to formulate ideas about citizenship and independent nationhood, particularly in opposition to indigenous societies. The writing of explorers, missionaries, travelers, anthropologists, and settlers shows that between the British and those they sought to control and convert there is almost always a third term: the material form. As commercial cargo and personal effects moved across the oceans in unprecedented quantities, they become the material ambassadors of a distant home and the tools with which colonists attempted to make British culture portable. By showing the centrality of exchangeable things to the development of national identity, the dissertation develops a framework for reading the novels of David Malouf, Nadine Gordimer, and Michael Ondaatje that is drawn from the largely-unexamined histories of settlement and reveals the singular questions such histories ask about the role of objects in the construction of human worlds and the invention of fictional ones. While much postcolonial theory is devoted to examining the intersubjective relationship between Europeans and the colonized, Writing and Portage argues that in the context of settlement the manner in which people revise and write about their understanding of themselves and others is inseparable from their attachment to things.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".