Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, critics have celebrated Caribbean theories of creolization for their creative and protean approaches to identity. E.K. Brathwaite’s version of creolization and Wilson Harris’s “creative syncretism” (his term for cross-cultural exchanges) have been hailed as powerful critical tools in dismantling destructive binaries and harmful racial hierarchies within Caribbean literature.1 Similarly, Chris Bongie deploys Edouard Glissant’s understanding of creolization as a process of cross-cultural exchange to describe the limitations and possibilities of postcolonial theory. Bongie’s book, Islands and Exiles, is intended, he states, “quite simply to help further Glissant’s argument that ‘ours is a creolizing world’” (10). Indeed, H. Adlai Murdoch affirms the potential of Glissant’s theory in articulating a relational identity vitally important to the Caribbean region (157–61). Even Peter Childs and Patrick Williams’s recent Introduction to Post-Colonial Theory celebrates Caribbean creolization’s representation of a “positive, dynamic, processual becoming” (48). In all of these theories, creolization is situated in Caribbean history and racial identities but is, most fundamentally, as Bongie points out, a dynamic practice that can be extended to describe many situations of cross-cultural exchange.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".