Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionIn 2015, journalist and founder A. J. Jacobs held the first Global Family Reunion in New York City with the intention of highlighting the interrelatedness of the wider human family, in part through establishment of a global family tree linking trees posted on various websites. For two decades, the media have noted the increasing numbers of persons fashioning family trees prompted by, among other things, the aging of baby boomers, a sense of mortality (Wee, 1997, p. Al), a proliferation of Internet genealogy sites, and a growing pride in (Shute, 2002, p. 76). After completion of the mapping of the human genome in 2003, genetic ancestry services also arose, offering stimulating, intriguing, but contentious complements to family history texts and practices, particularly when it comes to race and ethnicity.Some critique genealogy as a limiting, naval-gazing pursuit devoted to, as Saar (2002) cautions, own culture, your milieu, your family, your genus (p. 236). It could preclude a critical posture-an ability to individuate, understand, and cultivate compassion and action in response to the struggles of others. In suggesting that one cannot fully appreciate an individual genealogy without positioning it within a constellation of peoples, eras, and events, the Global Family Reunion stimulates critical possibilities. Labrador and Chilton (2009) attest that genealogy is not only individualized . . . but immersed in the social concepts of geography, demography, citizenship, ethnicity, tourism, and diasporic movements and, thus, be elitist and exclusionary, and/or democratic and inclusionary (pp. 5-6). Moreover, Kuhn (2002) argues that family reminiscences and artifacts allow one to explore connections between 'public' historical events, structures of feeling, family dramas, relations of class, national and gender, and 'personal' memory (p. 5). Two questions arise. How can genealogy texts, services, and practices facilitate intercultural connection and inclusion? Where race and ethnicity are concerned, what are the common pitfalls and how might these texts, services, and practices address them?In this context, the titular expression identity has two meanings: (1) Acquiring new information and insights concerning one's own racial or background that illuminate previous and ongoing struggles; and (2) Interrogating one's racial or identifications, uncovering contextual correspondences with other groups, and cultivating understanding of their historical and/or current circumstances. While a critical genealogy requires both recuperations, those who currently navigate racial or minority status engage in the first recuperation daily. For others whose background does not require sustained negotiation, this recuperation requires new or renewed effort. However, the second recuperation demands such effort of all participants in genealogy culture.This essay cites but proceeds beyond previous research that considers various aspects of identity, especially documentary television series that genealogically profile celebrity or noncelebrity guests (see Scodari, 2013). Focusing on race and ethnicity and applying critical race, postcolonial, and other critical theory, this study considers these and other traditional and digital media narratives relating to genealogy and genetic ancestry.1 It also scrutinizes responses of participants and other practices, such as DNA testing for so-called ethnic ancestry. It draws upon my auto-ethnographic experiences in recuperating my through engagements in/with genealogy websites, DNA testing, family interactions, and family history travel/ As a work of critical media and cultural studies, it taps into interdisciplinary domains such as American, memory, kinship, migration, and heritage studies, as well as disciplines of sociology, education, anthropology, history, genetics, and geography. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".