Introduction: Hybridity in <i>Giallo</i>: The Fruitful Marriage between Italian Crime Fiction and Theatre, Literary Geographies, and Historical and Literary Fiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue is devoted to the analysis of hybridization in crime fiction.According to David Duff, generic hybridization is "[t]he process by which two or more genres combine to form a new genre or subgenre; or by which elements of two or more genres are combined in a single work" (Duff, "Key Concepts" xiv).This broad definition captures quite neatly the forms of overt experimentation with genre conventions often considered characteristic of contemporary literature (Hassan 170) and other art forms.For Jutta Ernst, the term "hybrid genres" denotes literary forms that unite characteristics of different genres and that, because they explode conventional genre typologies, cannot adequately be described with the genre designations used in the Western literary tradition (267).In the last few decades, many scholars have explored hybridization in literature.Both Christin Galster (15) and Klaudia Seibel (137) begin their studies of literary hybrids by stressing the distinctness and heterogeneity of the literary classes as a precondition for the formation of hybrids; some scholars prefer to use the terms "blurring" (Hutcheon 9) or "dissolution" of genre boundaries (Duff, "Introduction" 16).Finally, very recently Martina Allen has supported the use of "conceptual blending" as opposed to "genre mixing" for indicating the creation of dynamic conceptual structures constructed for specific purposes and according to specific situations (Allen 12).In any case, analyzing contemporary literature, Ansgar Nünning sees a "proliferation of hybrid genres" which integrate factual material into fictional narratives such as "the New Journalism" and the "non-fiction novels," "historiographic metafiction," "documentary fiction," a revisionist type of "postmodernist historical novel," "uchronian fantasy," "parahistorical novels," and "factifiction" (282).More dramatically, Fishelov declares that "hybridization in literature is […] more common than hybridization in nature" (20).All these views imply that literature has a dynamic nature that allows such blurring or dissolution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".