MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789358534 · doi:10.3138/ecf.30.3.339

Trans-Saharan Worlds and World Views in Aphra Behn’s <i>Oroonoko</i>

2018· article· en· W2789358534 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebekah Mitsein

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphraPalimpsestContext (archaeology)ScholarshipColonialismRepresentation (politics)HistoryArabicNarrativePoliticsLiteratureSociologyPolitical scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyArtLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aphra Behn’s Coramantien has long been considered more Orientalized than African. But in this essay, I reassess the sub-Saharan setting of Oroonoko (1688) in the context of early modern geographical writing about Africa. Not simply a projection of colonial fantasies, the British image of Africa during this time had a foundation in the long history of the trans-Sahara trade, in Arabic texts, and in the discourse that sub-Saharan merchants and guides used to describe their homelands. Building on scholarship demonstrating that Behn was interested in the early study of geography, I argue that Oroonoko dramatizes geographical representation as a palimpsest of textual and oral details, and that the novel interrogates whether isolating the material and the measur able from the discursive and the ideational is a viable epistemological strategy. In doing so, Oroonoko shows that European world views were shaped from the outside in, which enables us to read the novel itself as a text underwritten by the stories that Arab North Africans and sub-Saharan Africans told about their worlds.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207