Bibliographic record
Abstract
This plenary presentation eulogizes Edward Said and speaks to his courage, passion, and scholarship, while simultaneously acknowledging his discomfort with the problematic category of “great men.” Shohat traces Said’s early scholarship, the vitriolic backlash against his words, and the way his work consolidated what would, a decade later, become the fields of postcolonial studies and cultural studies. Shohat’s presentation then delves into the circulation and reception of his critique of Orientalism as an example of “traveling theory.” In Middle East studies, Said has been criticized as a deficient political scientist or historian or anthropologist, with critics ignoring the central concern of his work: the problem of representation and the necessity of a political critique that is also a cultural critique. In postcolonial studies in Israel, a certain post-Zionist discourse privileged Homi Bhabha’s theories of hybridity, which were translated into Hebrew, over Said’s not-yet-translated and allegedly binaristic notions of coloniality. In the final moments of the presentation, Shohat reflects on her friendship with Edward Said, remembering his courage in the face of consistent attacks and his willingness to inhabit the ever-uncomfortable space of the worldly yet “out-of-place” intellectual.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".