Cultural Studies in Interhemispherical Perspective. China, Africa, Asia and Australasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thematic assessment is offered with regard to Critical Arts’s incorporation into various Chinese trajectories and networks of cultural and media studies. The predominance of discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, and comparative empirical studies of Western and Chinese media is addressed for the period 2016–2023, as is the recent location of Critical Arts within the global discourse analysis publishing sector, that is mapped in Wang and Sun (2023, “Bibliometric Study on Chinese Discourse (1994-2021).” Critical Arts 1–17). The reasons for this narrow discursive framing are offered in comparison with another trajectory that is evident in the pages of the journal, one that emerges out of Chinese literary studies in conversation with Western theories, Western philosophies and which addresses big epistemological questions rather than questions of comparative “us-them” differences/correspondences or of administrative or linguistic detail. Finally, in addressing the different methodological directions that have been experienced in the journal’s pages, this overview seeks to act as something of a manifesto in returning Critical Arts to a more general cultural and media studies position. Our method of analysis is to symptomatically track and frame the Chinese meta-narratives as published in the journal, to identify and describe the themes that have been of concern to our various Chinese authors and editors, to relate these to cultural studies as inherited from the field’s earlier origins across the world, and to offer a paradigmatic map for future authors through which to conceptually filter their submissions. Our analysis was pre-circulated to the four Critical Arts editorial board China specialists, amongst others, who were invited to contribute to our narrative.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".