Bibliographic record
Abstract
The one who made too much of an effort to understand, the one who underwent the agonies of a conversion, the one whose idea was that of renunciation when he embraced the customs of those who forged their destinies in this primeval slime in a hand-to-hand struggle with the mountains and the trees, was vulnerable because certain forces of the world he had left behind continued to operate in him. Titles are never simple or innocent especially when they appear to be so. This holds true for the seemingly innocuous title of this chapter. For what should give us pause in the title is the innocent, commonplace conjunction. Why is ‘primitivism’ – a term that summons up colonial projects and projections and enables the West to assert its modernity and maturity – linked through the conjunction ‘and’ to ‘postcolonial literature’ which, one can justifiably assume, would reject the scandalous problems associated with the term ‘primitivism’? If, as literary and art historians have informed us repeatedly, modernist art and literature relied heavily on the resources provided by so-called primitive cultures, then surely postcolonial writers and artists would be critical of any form of primitivism that energized Western modernism? What, then, is the status of the conjunction in our title? Does it imply some kind of relation between primitivism and postcolonial literature? What sort of relation do we have here? Is it an antagonistic relation in which postcolonialism is opposed to primitivism? Or a complementary relation in which postcolonial literature finds primitivism useful as a strategic partner?
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".