MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613439379 · doi:10.1215/00104124-3865423

Aesthetics, Politics, and the Return of Negritude

2017· article· en· W2613439379 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Bongie

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Literature · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCaribbean and African Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsPoliticsPoetryDiasporaAestheticsSubjectivityRelation (database)ColonialismLiteratureNationalismCreolizationArtHistorySociologyGender studiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Not so long ago, Negritude was an object of scepticism in many postcolonial quarters for its supposed implication in a variety of no-longer respectable patterns of thought: its purportedly essentialist approach to cultural identity seemed dated in relation to the more open-ended poetics of creolization, and its politics was seen as either too committed to Manichean patterns of anti-colonial thinking or too accommodating in its willingness to envision federalist as opposed to nationalist solutions to the problem of decolonization. Over the past decade that situation has changed dramatically, both in relation to Negritude politics (see the ground-breaking work of Gary Wilder) and in relation to its poetics. This review essay examines the recent (re)turn to Negritude by looking at Carrie Noland's 2015 Voices of Negritude in Modernist Print: Aesthetic Subjectivity, Diaspora, and the Lyric Regime, engaging with its revisionist, Adorno-based take on “the Negritude poem” (specifically the poetry of Aimé Césaire and Léon-Gontran Damas) and contextualizing her approach in relation to the recent “aesthetic turn” in post colonial 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.035
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative LiteratureSame topicCaribbean and African Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207