Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Postcolonial Turn Stephen Slemon, Professor The event that rocked my disciplinary world was the 1989 publication of the Routledge handbook The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. That book inspired a subdisciplinary blow-up over critical methodology, but where it really "wrote back" was to the discipline of English Studies as a whole. This wasn't the only work to show that the so-called "new" global literatures, fashioned as they were in partial response to British imperial expansion, carried an inalienable political project. Earlier books and articles had already made the claim that the "other" literatures in "english," relegated as they then were to the curricular margins, actually ran straight down the centre of the English Studies' page. But The Empire Writes Back persuaded the global English Department that its object of study was foundationally cross-cultural and that this entailed a commitment to meaningful social change. Further disciplinary inclusions were bound to follow. [End Page 13] Stephen Slemon, Professor English and Film Studies University of Alberta Copyright © 2015 Association of Canadian College and University Teachers
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".