Bibliographic record
Abstract
From colonial to postcolonial in Southeast Asia In the context of Southeast Asia, ‘postcolonial’ invokes the lasting influence of several nations, languages and cultures from which this chapter singles out the narrative of writing by anglophone authors born in societies governed for varying periods, and with varying degrees of control, by Britain and the US. ‘Southeast Asia’ is a fictional name of recent provenance which was eventually adopted by the people whose region it was meant to designate as a theatre of operations during World War II: the zone located east of India, south of China and north of Australia on any map of Asia. The usefulness of the term outlasted the war and the Cold War. Currently, it refers to a group of nations comprising Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (formerly Burma), the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor) and Vietnam. The grouping is formalized in international organizations such as the ASEAN (founded in 1967), and highlights three factors: geographical proximity, shared economic interests and a history of nationhood built – with the partial exception of Thailand – from the aftermath of European (and in the case of the Philippines, Spanish and American) colonialism. Although not generally considered part of Southeast Asia, we can add the territories of Hong Kong and Macao to the comparative context of this chapter: their status as British and Portuguese colonies changed to that of Special Administrative Regions of the People’s Republic of China in 1997 and 1999 respectively, giving the use of English for creative purposes in these territories additional nuances within the idea of ‘postcolonial’ cultures and literatures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".