MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177571656 · doi:10.1017/9781108773522.021

The Blues in Print

2021· book-chapter· en· W3177571656 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrightAlienationPoliticsArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)ManifestoBlueprintAestheticsBluesWarrantScholarshipSociologyArtLiteratureHistoryArt historyPolitical scienceVisual artsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1937 manifesto “Blueprint for Negro Writing” is typically regarded as a programmatic articulation of the literary and aesthetic principles for the kind of socially engaged literature Richard Wright believed a modern Black writer ought to produce. This reading of the text assumes, however, an internally coherent argument that it does not entirely warrant. Indeed, I argue that the “Blueprint” is substantially haunted by a fear of alienation and isolation that tends to undermine its purportedly communalist politics. When read in the context of the vexed coterie politics of Dorothy West’s New Challenge magazine where it first appeared, as well as the edits and alternative draft notes in the archive, Wright’s attitude assumes a far more doubtful, and even vulnerable posture. This revised understanding of a key document in Wright’s oeuvre opens it—and by extension the early fiction as well—to new directions in Wright scholarship, especially those concerned with the intersection of race, affect, and alienation.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.022

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207