The Role and Practice of Racialized Discourse in Culture and Cultural Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the discursive processes through which the cultural élite, including journalists and editors, and other cultural "authorities" responded to a controversy over three cultural events, the "Writing Thru Race" conference, "Into the Heart of Africa" and Show Boat. In analyzing the protests against racism in cultural production, the press employed a discourse aimed at delegitimizing dissent and stifling debate. Within a discourse of liberal principles and values the media and other cultural producers articulated and transmitted powerful and negative narratives, denigrating images and ideas about ethno-racial minorities. The authors contend, that in a racialized society, the repertoires of representation and representational practices are used to signal racial difference and signify the racialized "Other." The paper illuminates how social inequality is constructed and maintained through discursive practices in the cultural spaces of Canadian organizations, institutions and systems.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".