Kulturoznawstwo porównawcze Stevena Tötösy'ego w kontekście środkowoeuropejskim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agata Lisiak, THE COMPARATIVE CULTURAL STUDIES OF S TEVEN TOTOSY IN THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN CONTEXT. POROWNANIA 4/2007, Vol. IV, ISSN 1733-165X, p. 53-60. The aim of the author is to present chosen elements of the Canadian comparatist Steven Totosy's theory and their application in the analysis of the Central European cultures. In an attempt to restore the proper stat us of comparative studies, which has been lost in the rec ent decades in favour of cultural studies, Totosy u nites both fields in the scope of the synthetic concept of com parative cultural Its main assumptions are presented in the ten general principles. They allow to define To tosy's project as, i.a. interdisciplinary, intercul tural, pluralistic, Anglophone and methodologically reliab le. The author points to the applicability of the bove mentioned principles in the research on Eastern and Central European culture, supported by the analyse s carried out by the Totosy himself, e.g. in the works on the contemporary Eastern German and Hungarian prose. The author claims that a more frequent and widespread application of Totosy's theory can result in preven ting the fall of comparative studies into the sea of dead ac ademic disciplines but also bringing about greate r interest for the Central European studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".