Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the Editors Daniel Heath Justice and James H. Cox The creative and scholarly contributions to this issue exemplify the strong health of contemporary Indigenous literary studies and the energetic conversations between diverse communities, texts, eras, ideas, and methods. The two critical essays take up canonical texts in the field—Linda Hogan's Power and D'Arcy McNickle's The Surrounded—and locate them not only in the rich critical discourses of Native literature but also in relation to broader social and literary movements. Virginia Kennedy's interview with Ojibwe writer David Treuer follows on this theme and serves as a provocative extension of ongoing debates in the field about the relationship between culture and the arts of literary expression. Three poems by Scott Andrews (Cherokee) provide a creative complement to these texts and thoughtfully gesture toward some of the more compelling questions raised in the essays and interview. In addition to our attempt to build stronger coalitions among literary scholars in our field in Canada and the United States, we are introducing in this issue a feature that we hope to use with some frequency: review essays of publications that we believe will have substantial impact on our work. This issue features two review essays—one from a U.S. scholar, the other from a scholar in Canada—on Reasoning Together: The Native Critics Collective, which has just been published by the University of Oklahoma Press. The collection's twelve coauthors have devoted their energies over the course of several years to contemplating what constitutes an ethical American Indian literary criticism. We look forward to [End Page vii] your thoughts on the review essays and our conversations about Reasoning Together, and we hope that you will keep us informed about other forthcoming texts that would be well served by such a forum. We also wanted to mention the publication of a relatively new journal of American Indian writing called Yellow Medicine Review: A Journal of Indigenous Literature, Art and Thought. Four issues of the journal have been published by Southwest Minnesota State University, and each one includes an astonishing group of Indigenous writers. We wish the journal success and hope to hear and see discussions about it at conferences and in the pages of SAIL. [End Page viii] Copyright © 2008 University of Nebraska Press
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.423 | 0.383 |
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".