Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the turn of the twenty‐first century a growing amount of scholarship has focused on the correlations between postcolonial studies and environmental criticism or ecocriticism. Despite the numerous ethical and political connections of global social justice and ecological crisis, postcolonial and ecocritical approaches have historically remained distant from one another. The emergence of postcolonial ecocriticism, however, has aimed to move beyond the mutual unease that has characterized the relationship of these two critical perspectives, formulating a more ecologically aware postcolonialism and a more politically conscious ecocriticism. While the majority of postcolonial‐ecocritical scholarship so far has concentrated on contemporary literature, postcolonial ecocriticism has particular relevance for Victorian Studies. As an era of intensive imperial expansion and industrial development, the nineteenth century comprised a pivotal stage in global environmental history that brought dramatic ecological change to many regions of the world in the same moment that it forged momentous political shifts. After introducing the theoretical premises of postcolonial ecocriticism and situating these within the environmental history of empire, this essay sketches some areas of possibility of this new critical approach for unpacking the global environmental resonances of Victorian literature, concluding with four suggested areas within which a Victorian postcolonial ecocriticism might unfold.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".