Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘It was as if a Briton, of the time of Severus, had suddenly written a poem in good Latin’, read the 1829 Oriental Herald Review appraisal of the 1827 and 1829 volumes of Henry Derozio’s poetry. This was high praise indeed by a reviewer (quite possibly the editor of the Oriental Herald , J.S. Buckingham) who had earlier puzzled over the viability of Indian writing in English: ‘the very language … can hardly be called English’. The poet in question was Henry Louis Vivian Derozio, a Calcutta ‘Eurasian’ of Portuguese and Indian ancestry, and a pioneer Indian English writer. Derozio’s poems imagined and apostrophized a unified India from the limited scope of the plains of ‘Bhaugulpore’ or the rock of ‘Jungheera’ and gave tremulous form to its nascent nationalist imagination. Derozio’s elegiac poems of India situate him as a belated arrival to the once glorious but now subjugated country. In ‘The Harp of India’ (March 1827), for instance, he writes: Thy music once was sweet – who hears it now? Why doth the breeze sigh over thee in vain? Silence hath bound thee with her fatal chain; Neglected, mute, and desolate art thou, Like ruined monument on desert plain! Derozio’s ‘postcoloniality’ inheres not in dates but in the postimperial tone of the nationalist poetry. And his enthusiastic appropriation of the English literary canon to write of the emancipation of India testifies to the predicament of the postcolonial writer, whose conscious or unconscious affiliation and allusiveness to the Western literary tradition is an inheritance that is often as unwanted as it is laboured for.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".