Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The connections between autobiography and the postcolonial are profound. Postcolonial studies has brought political concerns to bear on literary texts, showing not only how such texts respond to structures of power and privilege, but also how they may play a part in creating or contesting such structures. In parallel, autobiography studies takes as its object a series of texts that cannot simply be addressed in formalist terms, that insist on their referentiality even as they form new subjectivities, both individual and collective, for writers and readers. Parallel battles over terminology, indeed, indicate intersecting disciplinary tensions. As Ato Quayson’s introduction illustrates, debates over the inclusion of the hyphen in ‘post(-)colonial’ arise from discussions over whether the term marks a temporal or an epistemological rupture. Auto/biography studies, similarly, has recently made greater use of the terms ‘auto/biography’ and ‘life writing’ as concepts more inclusive than Philippe Lejeune’s definition of autobiography as ‘a retrospective prose narrative produced by a real person concerning his [sic] own existence, focusing on his individual life, in particular on the development of his personality’, widening attention to a variety of forms in different social and cultural contexts. At the same time, others have insisted on the specificity of ‘autobiography’ as a particular modern genre promoting individual subjectification, and constituting a site of struggle over redefined individual and communal identities in modern society.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".