13: Maps, Borders, and Cultural Citizenship: Cartographic Negotiations in Thomas King’s Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A s numerous critics have pointed out , literal and metaphorical maps and mapping “are dominant practices of colonial and postcolonial cultures” (Ashcroft, Griffith, and Tiffin 2007, 28). Maps are a form of representation (“representational space,” as W. H. New has called them in Land Sliding ), a construction of spatial relations and imagination, a form of control over space in the context of colonialism. But maps are also deployed as a strategy to counter hegemonic models of space. This is a central aspect for postcolonial societies, in which colonial inscriptions, for instance through cartography, are challenged and deconstructed in literary texts. At the same time, postcolonial nations like Canada or Australia present a more complex constellation when it comes to the politics of cartography. The majority population may find itself in a critical position vis-a-vis colonial understandings of space and, simultaneously, in a position of colonial continuity. Here, the role of cartography cannot be solely envisaged as the reworking of a particular spatial paradigm, but consists rather in the implementation of a series of creative revisions which register the transition from a colonial framework within which the writer is compelled to recreate and reflect upon the restrictions of colonial space to a postcolonial one within which he or she acquires the freedom to engage in a series of ‘territorial disputes’ that implicitly or explicitly acknowledge the relativity of modes of spatial (and by extension, cultural) perception. (Huggan 2008, 30)
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".