Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photography has played a crucial role within cultural processes which constitute the lived histories of Fiji Indian diasporas. Within Fiji such relationships are exemplified in the practices of Indianowned photographic studios in the 1950s and 1960s, although domestic photography continues to be the major form of vernacular cultural expression within contemporary Fiji Indian (or Indo-Fijian) communities now scattered throughout Australasia, the USA, Canada, and the Pacific region.1 Remarkably, this highly visual process of inscription takes place against the historical context of apparent invisibility of the Indian community within photographic practices of the colonial period in Fiji, although Indians were introduced into the colony as indentured labourers in 1879 and have lived there in considerable numbers since.2 Over the last decade, important theoretical work has emerged on the once overlooked practices and discourses of family photography,3 as have a number of postcolonial studies into the vernacular photographic practices of Afro-Caribbean and Asian diaspora communities in the West.4 Important research which maps the cultural implications of Indian street or vernacular photography has also emerged recently.5 However, there remains a need for work which focuses on vernacular or family photography in relation to specific diaspora experiences within colonized spaces such as Fiji, as well as the postcolonial spaces of the Indian ‘double diaspora’.6
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.747 | 0.427 |
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".