Powojenna diaspora. Kilka uwag o obrazie serbskiej i chorwackiej emigracji w najnowszej literaturze
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Post-War Diaspora: Some Remarks on the Depiction of Serbian and Croatian Emigrants in Recent LiteratureThe essay aims to show how modern literature of both Serbia and Croatia depicts the early South Slavic emigration of the post-World War II period. Describing historical conditions before and during WWII, the author depicts Serbian and Croatian emigration groups which differ one from the other in their mental backgrounds. But the books analysed in the essay show that, when abroad, both Serbs and Croats present identical attitudes and are involved in the same rituals, exclusion and stigmatisation. The analysis is based on two texts: one written by Vladimir Tasić, a Serb emigrant to Canada, the other by Daša Drndić, a Croatian woman of many years’ emigrant experience. In their books the two authors describe members of both nations who form strongly consolidated groups abroad and exhibit nationalistic viewpoints. Both Tasić and Drndić are modern literary writers, open to novelty in art. Furthermore, they openly reject the nationally oriented state models which originated after the collapse of Yugoslavia. They also criticise representatives of the post-war emigration. The author of the essay thus concludes that, after years of silence about the post-war diaspora, the contemporary emigrant communities emerge in two contrasting ways in Serbian and Croatian literature and in scholarly discourse. One is represented by politically and aesthetically conservative artists and scholars, and has a clearly apologetic character. The other, represented by Drndić and Tasić, expresses a critical approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".