Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduces the argument about the literary ambition motivating landmark African American novelists from Charles Chesnutt to Ralph Ellison, and essential to the creation of a world-class African American literature. Introduces the general argument that these African American novelists based their hopes for literary success on the fundamentally enabling assumption of African American “literary destitution.” Assuming that the first “great” African American writer was yet to come, each writer aligned his or her individualistic ambition with the collective project of building an African American literature. In practice this led to later generations of writers making “sacrificial precursors” of those who had achieved but short-term, relative success in the past, and who came to seem dated or overly conventional in response to the growing prestige of international literary modernism that added a pressure to be “modern” to the pressure to be “literary.” The introduction challenges notions of an internally developing African American literary canon by insisting on the extent to which African American literature developed internationally and comparatively, through the work of writers who inescapably measured literary success in terms of the modernist literature being canonized within the literary field they struggled to win prominent positions in.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.308 | 0.180 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".