MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199942244 · doi:10.33806/ijaes2000.1.1.8

THE. EMPIRE READS BACK:M.G. VASSANJI'S THE BOOK OFSECRETS

2000· article· en· W3199942244 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Malak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Arabic-English Studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsNewman Theological College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalitySubtextEmpireColonialismNarrativeContext (archaeology)PolyphonyHistoryLiteratureIngenuityAestheticsZeitgeistSociologyArtPhilosophyEpistemologyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The driving impetus behind postcolonial literatures leads not only to technical ingenuity, liminal insights, or polyphonic perspectives, but also, in part, to a retaliatory discursive thrust that attempts setting the record straight. In almost every postcolonial/third worldist narrative, one can discern a political subtext that strives towards articulating a contradistinctive zeitgeist. There seems to be an urgency here to compensate for lost times, for denied opportunities, and for blank spaces in the narrative of empire that has erstwhile been occupied by what Michel Foucault calls le discours dominant produced by apologists of the colonial enterprise. M.G. Vassanji's novel The Book of Secrets (1994) makes its intervention by cleverly creating a colonial text, taking the form of a diary, the titular book of secrets, and then situating it within a context that foregrounds the limitations of the colonial perspective without necessarily condemning it outright. .

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Arabic-English StudiesSame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207