Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creole... English: West Indian Writing as Translation — This paper looks at the use of language(s) in Indo-Caribbean (i.e., West Indian of East Indian descent) writings. West Indian writers are Creole, in every sense of the term: born in (former) British colonies, they have a hybrid culture and a hybrid language. They operate from within a polylectal Creole language-culture continuum which offers them a wide and varied linguistic range (Creole to Standard English) and an extended cultural base ("primitive" oral culture to anglicized written culture). Indo-Caribbean writers, however, have access, not only to the Creole language-culture continuum, but also to the pre-colonial cultural, linguistic and religious traditions of their ancestors who came from India in the 19th century. But if Creole is the mother-tongue of all West Indians, English is the only language they know to read and write. West Indian literature in English constitutes an intricately woven textile of Creole and English : a hybrid writing made possible through the translation of Creole experience into English; oral Creole culture into written English; the Creole language into the English language. In fact, West Indian literature in English can be considered self-translation, for which the presence of the author as the translator gives authority to the hybridized product, a true extract of the West Indian writer and his Caribbean language-culture.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".