Is Australia (still) Postcolonial (yet)? Review of *Postcolonial Issues in Australian Literature*, edited by Nathanael O'Reilly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost ten years ago, a spate of edited books in Canada by the academics Laura Moss and Cynthia Sugars brought important insights from the then-vibrant field of postcolonial literary studies to bear on questions about Canadian literature. Their work rigorously examined the applicability and difficulty of reading literature from settler societies through the lens of postcolonialism. The challenges and benefits of raising postcolonial issues in Australian literature has been long argued by academics such as Helen Tiffin, Bill Ashcroft, Graham Huggan, Alan Lawson and me, among many others, but no mirror-set of Australian texts has yet been published. 'There is possibly no more vexed question in post-colonial studies than the status of settler colonies' (15) writes Bill Ashcroft in the first chapter of Postcolonial Issues in Australian Literature. In a well-written Introduction to the volume, O'Reilly rehearses the challenges to postcolonial approaches in settler literatures, arguing energetically for the inclusion of settler colonies in general and Australia in particular within the ambit of postcolonial literary studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".