MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314097067 · doi:10.1215/00029831-1541040

World Writing: Poetics, Ethics, Globalization

2012· article· en· W2314097067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joshua Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Literature · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsGlobalizationLiteraturePhilosophySociologyArtAestheticsPolitical sciencePoetryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| March 01 2012 World Writing: Poetics, Ethics, Globalization World Writing: Poetics, Ethics, Globalization. Ed. Gallagher, Mary. Toronto, ON: Univ. of Toronto Press. 2008. vi, 262 pp. Cloth, $60.00; paper, $27.95.Multilingual America: Language and the Making of American Literature. By Rosenwald, Lawrence Alan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2008. xxii, 174 pp. Cloth, $90.00; paper, $29.99. Joshua Miller Joshua Miller Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google American Literature (2012) 84 (1): 201–203. https://doi.org/10.1215/00029831-1541040 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Joshua Miller; World Writing: Poetics, Ethics, Globalization. American Literature 1 March 2012; 84 (1): 201–203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00029831-1541040 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsAmerican Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2012 by Duke University Press2012 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican LiteratureSame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207