Bibliographic record
Abstract
How, and for what reasons, might one cross an ocean? How might we analyze, as well, crossings of another time, place, and people? And what can be said of future crossings? If we turn to this volume on transatlantic and transpacific connections edited by Nicole Poppenhagen and Jens Temmen, we can cultivate an early twenty-first century sensibility about the crossing of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Specifically, Poppenhagen and Temmen have compiled a fine collection of essays that reflect a new and uneven but nevertheless shared awareness of Black diasporas, climate change, Indigenous rights, historical and literary methodologies, slavery, social movements, and transnationalism across the Atlantic and the Pacific. To be clear, their eight international contributors do not claim expertise in each of these matters. Nor are they dominated by a single demographic, period, or theme. But when we spatially address their topics through the local and global lens of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, we can witness how such crossings might be achieved at this juncture in time among the English-speaking scholars of academia. Three decades ago, for instance, one would have been hard-pressed to identify a discipline, forum, or publication that featured and linked, as this collection brilliantly does, Canadian Inuit articulations of sovereignty in the Artic with Herman Melville’s representation of piracy in the novella “Benito Cereno” (1855/1856) and with, even further afar, Venetian mappings of the early modern world in the sixteenth century. Today, much has changed, as illustrated in Poppenhagen and Temmen’s text, “Across Currents: Connections between Atlantic and (Trans)Pacific Studies.”
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".