Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses the current field of Lusophone studies in the north American academy and its relation to Portuguese, Iberian, and Luso-Brazilian studies. It considers some of the disciplinary politics of the field's, and how Lusophone studies has a broad remit that encompasses both Eurocentric studies and the postcolonial cultures related to the former Portuguese empire as well as diasporic movements. The concept of the Portuguese language abroad as a basis for communal identity (or <i>lusofonia</i>), a term that carries cultural and political weight as well as linguistic identity, enters into the critical assessment as one of the concepts that might provide for a more expanded and inclusive arena of Portuguese-based identity apart from the traditional understandings of a "standard" form of the Portuguese language, such as the case with contemporary African forms of expression. The article also traces the engagement, collaborations, and contributions of Lusophone studies with and to other humanities disciplines such as LGBTQ studies, women's/feminist studies, and postcolonial/diasporic studies which focus on Africa, Asia, and the U.S./Canada. The article provides a view of how Lusophone studies as a field has moved from a more traditional practice of literary/historical studies to accompany more contemporary and newer lines of academic inquiry, and how these directions often work against an inherent colonialism in earlier assumptions and practices informing the discipline.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".