MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606074674 · doi:10.3968/9122

The “Writing Back Paradigm” and the Relevance of Postcolonial Stylistics

2017· article· en· W2606074674 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Kalpana

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimal distinctiveness theoryStylisticsContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)AppropriationSociologyLiteratureAestheticsLinguisticsHistoryPhilosophyPsychologyArtPolitical scienceLawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postcolonial writers writing in English resorted to various strategies and deviations to maintain the cultural distinctiveness and nativity of both text and context. This practice is also true of postcolonial writers in the postliberalisation era. These strategies and deviations, as a process of “acculturisation”, have been described by the use of terms such as “abrogation” and “appropriation” by Ashcroft et al. (1989). This article collects examples from the works of various postcolonial writers as reviewed by various critics and analyses various strategies, deviations and innovations attempted by these writers to mark their distinctiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207