Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rather than composing a conventional introduction to the volume, we decided instead to offer an informal introductory conversation that outlines the genesis of the collection, some of the central questions that organize it, and our hopes for the contributions it might make to ongoing conversations about Indigeneity, modernity, and literary/cultural production. We also thought it important to reflect on what it meant—and means—to do this kind of intellectual work amid an ongoing global pandemic, widespread movements for racial and social justice, and an intensifying environmental crisis. As we note in the acknowledgements and in the discussion that follows, these contexts have touched every contributor to this volume in one way or another, and we think it important to honor these impacts and to reflect honestly and organically on what it means to do intellectual work and how we do it in ways that acknowledge the full humanity—and relationality—of those involved. Where relevant, we’ve gestured to how specific contributions in the volume speak to these questions and have attempted to situate them within larger critical conversations across modernist studies, Native American and Indigenous Studies, US and Canadian literary and cultural studies, and other fields.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.148 | 0.046 |
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".