Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, discussions on postmigration and postmigrant aesthetics have gained traction in European cultural studies and current discourses on the role of migration in modern societies. Our introduction to the themed issue on ‘Postmigration: Aesthetics and Interventions’ seeks to provide an overview of some of the most central developments in the field, whether it is the growing academic awareness of ‘postmigrant theatre’, which has been a major success in Germany since 2008, or the recent academic debates and international discussions about postmigration as a new theory in social and cultural studies. We distinguish at least three major tendencies within these academic debates that either focus on postmigrant subjectivities, on postmigrant societies, or on postmigration as a new analytical perspective. Furthermore, we also address some of the criticism that could be brought up against the concept of postmigration from postcolonial and decolonial approaches. Our ambition is to open the concept for future challenges and perspectives in the fields of European cultural and migration studies when investigating diverse and super-diverse social spaces and cultural productions, including their aesthetics, politics and narratives of belonging. At the end, we briefly introduce all contributions coming from anthropology, social, cultural and literary studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.002 |
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".