MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2391042071 · doi:10.3138/cras.2015.010

Transitional Justice, Termination Policies, and the Politics of Literary Affect in Chrystos’ <i>Not Vanishing</i>

2016· article· en· W2391042071 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Cheryl Suzack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsInjusticePoliticsSubjectivityAgency (philosophy)Affect (linguistics)Economic JusticeContext (archaeology)SociologyPoetryAestheticsIndigenousSovereigntyPolitical subjectivityEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawHistorySocial sciencePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay discusses Chrystos’ poetry, arguing that it explores the relationship between aesthetics, politics, and affect by portraying the limits of sovereign agency as a paradigm that provides an explanatory and rational account for understanding the poet’s racialized, gendered, and occupied subjectivity. It proposes that poetry represents an important genre for attuning social justice actors to experiences of injustice that do not conform to the demands placed on them by adjudicatory processes, and it suggests that cultural texts by Indigenous authors provide an important context to the ongoing experience of social injustice by redirecting our attention to political events and situations that organize and originate victims’ claims.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.043
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207