“Enter Ghost of Goethe”: Comparison and Indigenous Literary Studies in the Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Māori writer Pei Te Hurinui Jones’s biography of a famous nineteenth-century composer was published serially in the government magazine Te Ao Hou and then in 1961 as Puhiwahine: Māori poetess. The final section of the biography is written in dramatic form: the author is interrupted at his desk by the “ghost of Goethe,” who, it had been rumored, was the father of Puhiwahine’s husband. Following other genealogies—especially those connected to the origins of comparative literature—we might say Goethe’s ghost had already “enter[ed]” this place. In 1886, Irish scholar Hutcheson Macaulay Posnett arrived in Auckland with his freshly printed book Comparative Literature, drawing on work by, among others, Goethe. Responding to Pacific studies scholar Teresia Teaiwa’s argument that “more often than not … the Pacific is not brought to the table as an equal partner in any conversation about the nature of humanity or society,” the article considers how, and on what terms, Te Hurinui’s reckonings with Goethe might be held alongside Posnett’s. Ultimately, drawing attention to these two very different “entries” of Goethe provides an opportunity to reckon with the current and potential relationship between comparative literature, Indigenous literary studies, and the Pacific.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".