James H. Cox and Daniel Heath Justice (eds),<i>The Oxford Handbook of Indigenous American Literature</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNTIL the 1960s, scholarship on indigenous American literature was relatively uncommon. That decade’s American Indian Literary Renaissance changed that, resulting in a scholarly field that by the 1990s was flourishing, with much of the analysis therein focusing on Indian identity. In the Introduction to The Oxford Handbook of Indigenous American Literature , editors James H. Cox and Daniel Heath Justice argue that the field has shifted in the last twenty years from a predominant focus on ‘identity, authenticity, hybridity, and cross-cultural mediation’ (1) to two current approaches: tribally or culturally specific criticism and American Indian literary nationalism. Their text thoroughly explores these two approaches, while at the same time providing an unprecedented breadth, seen in its notions of geography, time period, and genre. Geographically, the editors have used an inclusive definition of indigenous America, with essays covering literatures from the United States, Canada, Mexico, Samoa, Guam, and the Caribbean. Written texts from the seventeenth century to the twenty-first are represented, as well as oral traditions from the ancient to the contemporary. All four literary genres are discussed, as well as film, visual art, storytelling, and various transgeneric approaches. Some of the essayists included take a bibliographic approach to the texts, recognizing how important the cataloguing of previously untheorized and underappreciated texts is to the field; some do fairly traditional close readings of texts that have not yet received scholarly attention; some reexamine familiar figures, resisting or enriching the ways in which Western scholarship has read those figures; finally, some embark on complex critical journeys, opening up entirely new ways of reading indigenous literature, well-informed by canonical approaches to literary theory, yet forging unique approaches.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
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".