A Note on Pre-History of the ‘Folk’: The Case of Bangla Literary Historiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caught between a serious dichotomy: whether to believe in western Enlightenment as a panacea, or to ‘re-invoke’ ethnic-cultural indigeneity, the nineteenth century ‘Indian’ intelligentsia started to fence off an assorted chunk of their heterogeneous inheritance in the name of the ‘folk’ towards historicizing a ‘presentable’ past to re-inscribe their (racial) identity brutally thwarted in the thoroughly racist ‘outer domain’. This paper questions the legitimacy of folklore as a discipline and seeks to understand the politics of in/exclusion in the ‘order of things’ of the canon of ‘Bangla Literary History’. Pointing to the contestation on the ‘literary’ worth of what has been in/excluded in the canons officialized by two rival schools spearheaded respectively by Dineshchandra and Sukumar Sen, the paper sheds light on the stakes in the nineteenth ‘literary historians' sanitizing the corpus of (Bangla) literature against ‘folk’ literature and argues that it is symptomatic of their 'exclusionary' identity politics in their envisioning of 'Bengali' as an 'imagined community'.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".