Bibliographic record
Abstract
This objective of this study is to examine, albeit roughly, the topography of Korean diasporic literature, focusing on the comparison between Korean-Canadian and Korean-American (North American) literature and Korean-Japanese literature. First, this study examined the thematic consciousness of Korean literature in both regions and found that 1) in both regions, the literature deeply explored wandering and agony, universality and man’s existential value in the immigrants’ self-identity. It also found that 2 ) in terms of the expression of consciousness of home (home country, the Korean race, home town, parents, friends, etc.), North American literature showed nostalgia for home and returning home, whereas Japanese diasporic literature dealt with political ideology and its related form, such as a repatriation ship to North Korea. 3) North American literature elaborated upon the pursuit of the self through realizing the American dream, but Japanese diasporic literature achieved pursuit of the self through struggling and resisting against Japan and its people. 4) In terms of the spatial backdrop of literature, North American literature depicted daily life in Korean Town as its center, whereas Korean-Japanese literature tended to include scenes of discrimination in Japan or Japanese society, family relations, suburbs of a city and workplace. 5) Specific comparisons between themes included the presence of church culture or Christianity, conflicts between generations, conflicts with local society, conflicts among immigrants, economic hardship, educational issues, issues relating to divorce, interracial marriage, juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, etc. However, both Korean diasporic literature in North America and Japanese diasporic literature formed their own identity as Korean diasporic literature expressed through “decentration,” “hybridity,” and “glocalism.” In other words, it remains as homework that Korean literature created abroad should retain self-awareness away from “collateral extension of Korean literature,” while English and Japanese literature created by Korean writers should clarify the position of “Korean-American literature” and “Korean-Japanese literature” as one of “minor ethnic literatures” to secure their self-perpetuating abilities.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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".