Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no question that an Italian-[North] American literature exists, although an accurate critical classification is yet to come.Can we say, for example, that Christopher Columbus' journals and diaries, are -at least paradoxically -an early achievement of that literature?!Although this 'Ttalian-American" literature has not always been accepted for study by serious literary scholars, the term clearly delineates a particular type of literature, as the many anthologies will attest?However, there is also much controversy over the classification of it as "immigrant literature," that is, literature written by immigrants or emigrants, 'literature dealing with the experiences connected with immigration/ emigration."There is even much discussion over exactly who is an immigrant or emigrant.According to Italian law, an emigrant is someone who engages in manual labour: "E' considerato emigrante... ogni cittadino che espatri esclusivamente a scopo di lavoro manuale"* even if mass emigration of unqualified professionals has ceased for some time.The inherent risk in such a definition, despite enormous cultural, social and economic impact, as numerous studies have pointed out, is a continued scepticism with regard to the artistic and literary value of the works of Italian immigrants.Attempts to classify this literature have resulted in a major focus on the sociology of the interaction of two
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".