Bibliographic record
Abstract
The life-work of novelist/essayist/folklorist Zora Neale Hurston has been recently and lovingly salvaged from the black hole of literary oblivion. This reclamation occurs during a time of increasing attention paid to marginalia within various discourses of theory. This theoretical and historical coincidence has inspired me to question the continued relegation of Hurston’s life-work to the realm of “the literary” and the virtual absence of any serious exploration of its anthropological significance. In this study, therefore, I turn to Hurston as a writer of culture. I argue that Hurston’s work exemplifies the increasingly complex contemporary “field” in which anthropologists write culture, and thus animates the contemporary rethinking underway regarding the process, product and status of ethnographic writing. Her writing of culture weaves intriguingly back and forth over the boundaries of fiction and non-fiction, white culture and black culture, wealthy urban class and poor rural class, and, perhaps most interestingly, ‘subject’–anthropologist and ‘object’-culture. In tracing the sense in which Hurstons’s work continuously problematizes such simple we-they oppositions and the search for a singular voice, I argue that the theoretical insights of deconstruction take us a long way in understanding the politics of representation at work in Hurston’s heterogeneous texts, and help us to rethink their status as ‘representational’.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".