Bibliographic record
Abstract
The writers of the diaspora desired to keep alive their traditions in their writings; their basic inspirations are their memories of the past from the motherland. When the immigrants recollect their past, they are not only nostalgic about their memories but about their geographical place which is not only a geographical physical space but also the mentally conjured psychological cultural space. The paper attempts to show how an immigrant writer creates a third space in order to escape from the conflicting situation of choosing the host culture and the native culture as foundation for identity construction. In this new identity, s/he precipitates the past as well as present cultures, showing the diasporic literature as highly vibrant and expressive of the split self of an immigrant.Diaspora is not merely a scattering or dispersion but an experience made up of collective and multiple journeys; an experience determined by who travels, where, how and under what circumstances (Pal et al, 2004, p. 14).Tapas Chakraborty observes that diaspora has two kinds of people: doubly privileged and doubly underprivileged.The doubly underprivileged are those who have lost both homelands as illegal immigrants abroad, have lost izzat. They can't come back without having earned the money, which they lost when they left.The doubly privileged are the people who are 'high placed' in both homeland and the host country (Sharma et al, 2004, p. 55).In the words of Vijaya Mishra, the Indian context has two kinds of diaspora:The old Indian diaspora which is a diaspora of exclusivism, as opposed to new Indian diaspora characterized by mobility, because they created relatively self- contained Tittle Indians' in the colonies (Sharma et al, 2004, p. 82).The Indian diasporic communities have not decreased the intensity of the country but have expanded the borders of India by carrying their cultural baggage to the host culture. People migrate to other countries with many dreams, hopes and aspirations. However, we see many of their hopes and dreams remain fantasies and unrealistic. The question is where do people who have been with the host country for more than a decade stand in the society now? What is their place in that country? This idea can be pursued from Gupta (2003):Today, I live in Canada, having left my home, in Calcutta, not 50, but a little more than 25 years ago. I honestly do not know if I am any more 'independent' today than I would have been had I never left India in 1971. Regardless of whether one considers me a writer or not, I suppose I carry the brand name 'expatriates' (p. 40).An immigrant consciously or subconsciously tries to adapt the host country's culture to prosper and develop in the new culture. Indians who migrated to other countries for economic betterment, now with increased economic strength, play a crucial role in emerging trade, investment, technology and tourism. The people of Indian diaspora carry conflicting contradictory irresolvable cultural codes and pale images of civilization, and when these people are forced to be absorbed into the host country, they manifest maladjustments, because of the social hierarchies and racial, ethnic and cultural differences present within the settler country.Those of first generation Indian diaspora could not assimilate themselves into the host country as they are nostalgic of their homeland and still confined to the principles that nurtured them. The second generation of Indian diaspora gradually got involved with the host country. The third generation of Indian diaspora adapted to the host country. The Indian immigrants formed little Indian colonies in the host countries (such as America, Africa, Canada and UK) and made a noteworthy existence. These little Indian colonies resemble the mother country and in the words of Paranjape (2004),It is not just the homeland that creates diaspora but that diasporas also create the homeland (p. …
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".