MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469713875 · doi:10.3138/cras.2015.001

The Minoritarian Turn in Nineteenth-Century American Literary Studies

2016· article· en· W2469713875 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Justin Rogers‐Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipHistoryLiterary criticismLiteratureQueerPoliticsCriticismAnthropologyClassicsSociologyArtGender studiesLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three recent publications in nineteenth-century American literary studies are compelling examples of the field’s turn toward “minoritarian” criticism, a mode of inquiry that draws on a variety of “minor” movements in scholarship such as queer studies and critical race and ethnic studies. The collection of essays in Unsettled States exemplify the minoritarian impulse to treat literary and archival texts as theoretical objects coeval with the authority of contemporary scholarship and cultural theory. One of the contributors to Unsettled States, Kyla Wazana Tompkins, also authored Racial Indigestion, a foundational text in recent food studies that authoritatively traces the erotic politics of the mouth over the long nineteenth century. In The Delectable Negro, the late Vincent Woodward provocatively addresses the ways bodies of enslaved African Americans were cannibalized, metaphorically and literally, by parasitic slave masters. All three texts stake out new practices, objects, and methods for the field, and suggest vital new directions for future scholarship.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0170.047
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207