Mobility, Migrations and Creative Writing in Pulaar: What a 'Migrant Literature' is?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will discuss the notion of Migrant Literature through the case of literature in an African language, the Pulaar, produced and circulating in Europe and Africa. / The question of migrations and diasporas in African literature is generally studied from novels in European languages. / Paradoxically, the notions of Literature of Immigration in France or Migrant Writings in Canada refer to creative writings produced by migrants using only European languages. However those countries are multilingual. So, what about writings of migrants who use their mother tongue? I argue that the existence of creative writings in African languages in France, as is the case for Pulaar, is not only a clear evidence of globalization and Super-diversity in European countries. It is also a possibility to question the limits of a national approach of literature and to replace the paradigm of mobility and movement at the heart of the interpretation of texts. In those conditions, what a Migrant Literature is? This question will be illustrated by the example of a life story written in Pulaar Nguurndam Tumaranke [Life of an Immigran by a Senegalese worker, Baylaa Kulibali, in Paris and first published in 1981.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".