Bibliographic record
Abstract
In stark contrast to the idealistic promotion of emigration and the ideal of the healthy self examined in chapter 2, the book turns from idealism to reality through the genre most prominently associated with mid-nineteenth-century Black American literature and which abolitionist Theodore Parker argued contained, “All the original romance of America.” Building on scholarship that complicates this notion of the quintessentially American nature of the genre, chapter 3 reads three women’s slave narratives, which demonstrate how epistemologies of health and tensions between colony and nation on the issue of black well-being frustrate projects of national definition and nation building. Rhetorics of health offer a new potential for the genre’s continued and deepening complex relevance. At focus are slave narratives of three formerly enslaved women in seldom-compared geopolitical and literary contexts: colonial Canada, the United States, and the West Indies. The narratives are Mary Prince’s (1831), Sarah Pooley’s (1856) and Lavina Wormeny’s (1861). These women’s rhetorics of health articulate notions of selfhood that challenge contemporary medical and legal definitions of humanness and personhood and produce radically promising alternatives to such categories and to the overall valorization of autonomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".