Bibliographic record
Abstract
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ARTS IN GLOBAL ASIA: AN ANTHOLOGY Theodore W. Goossen and Anindo Hazra, Eds. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2014 struggle for more just and humane world begins with our ability to imagine how others live and how they think. All too often, 'the arts' become centered as an object of/for analysis within academic writing (albeit an interesting and captivating one). Perhaps due to convention and/ or the limitations of structure and word count, artistic creations are often synthesized, cut-down, and paraphrased to be made to fit into the body of academic work. In Fluman Rights and the Arts in Global Asia: An Anthology, space has been created for the arts within scholarly context. As companion volume to the collection of critical essays found in Human Rights and the Arts: Perspectives on Global Asia (edited by Susan Henders and Lily Cho), the reader has the opportunity to delve first hand into the textures of everyday that are presented through these literary works. The act and process of translation made it possible for majority of these works to be presented to an English-reading audience for the first time. Introducing writers from across Asia and the Asian diaspora, this anthology is the living proof of how commitments to 'the arts' can play out in academic/scholarly settings. As starting off point, Goossen and Hazra have crafted an introduction that offers the reader contextual counter-points to read alongside each chapter. Many of the literary and poetic pieces collected in this text express experiences living in/with conflict--situations that complicatedly cross social, political, economic, nationalistic, linguistic, and religious lines. This contextual counter-point is an important additional layer of background information for readers who may not be familiar with the contexts, landscapes, and histories being described. Understanding contexts as socially constructed frame[s] of reference, the editors state that a true grasp of context recognizes the interplay between the particular and the universal, and the limitations of viewing human existence through black and white dichotomies. Whether through the lens of the narrator, the various characters, or the authors/writers themselves, the reader encounters people and events that show the affective side of living; that situations and relations reverberate through the body; and that life ebbs and flows across dis/ease. And, importantly, that daily living with others does not always fit neatly into categories that are used to understand or analyze things. …
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".