Bibliographic record
Abstract
The editors of the Journal of Indian Ocean World Studies (JIOWS) are proud to present the first of two special issues organised by anthropologists Iain Walker and Martin Slama on diasporas and transnationalism in the Indian Ocean World (IOW). This first special issue challenges scholars to refocus our understandings of the meaning of ‘diaspora,’ a term whose wide usage in recent years has diminished its analytical utility, by conceiving the IOW as a macro-region in which diasporas ‘come into being, endure, and sustain themselves.’ Building on both classic and more recent works, the contributors to this issue examine the ways in which the development of diasporas has facilitated the maintenance of networks – commercial, religious, kinship, and more – around the IOW. They do so partly through the conceptualisation of the ‘diaspora for others.’ This concept rejects recent approaches that conflate ‘groups of migrants’ with diasporas. Instead, it conceives the diaspora as a ‘spatially dispersed community’ that functions ‘as a community,’ despite the sometimes large distances between its members. The emphasis is not merely on what diasporas are as an abstract phenomenon, but what they do for the people within them. This enables the contributors to incorporate communities whose ‘diasporic’ identity might be brought into question if the focus on the ‘group of migrants’ in diaspora studies were to continue. They additionally do this from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, including anthropology, literary studies, history, ethnography, and cultural heritage studies. They thus both refine and expand how the concept of ‘diaspora’ should be understood, highlight the interdisciplinary focus of the JIOWS, and show the ‘diaspora for others’ as a potentially ground-breaking feature of diaspora studies in the IOW and beyond.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.241 | 0.117 |
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".