MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735593515 · doi:10.1177/0262728015615486

Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani? Revisiting ‘National Language’ Debates through Radio Broadcasting in Late Colonial India

2016· article· en· W2735593515 on OpenAlex
Shobna Nijhawan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth Asia Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Cinema and Culture
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHindiUrduLiterary languageNational languageHistoryLinguisticsMedia studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asking how the nationalist intelligentsia and Hindi literati sought to interact with and shape the new medium of radio in a period of time that witnessed the establishment of All India Radio’s Lucknow station in 1938, this article embeds colonial discussions of radio broadcasting into the cultural, literary and linguistic debates over Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani. The vibrant debate on the standardisation of Hindi, set against the background of All India Radio policies, is discussed from the perspective of those literary actors and institutions that envisioned diverse oral forms of Hindi and Hindustani for the rural and urban population residing in the Hindi belt and the rest of India. In addition, the article compares the radio broadcasting language to other contributions published in Hindi to show how languages operated not only in parallel but also in intersecting literary spheres. The article shows that language debates over radio broadcasting functioned as a site to probe the flexibility of what was to be officially projected as the language of the nation-to-be.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.244 · 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