Identity and hybridity in native american autobiographies of the 18th and 19th centuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dès le XVIIIe siècle, des Amérindiens ont raconté leur vie en s'appropriant les codes sémiotiques de la société dominante anglo-américaine blanche : l'anglais, l'écriture alphabétique, la production de textes destinés à être lus.Teintées d'une hybridité générique mêlant, souvent de manière subversive, des pratiques narratives, rhétoriques et discursives issues des mondes amérindien et anglo-américain, ces autobiographies donnent à lire pourquoi et comment leurs auteurs ont abordé le thème ambivalent de l'hybridité socio-culturelle et identitaire dans le contexte tendu de la colonisation.Dans une étude en trois parties (se présenter, se raconter, se recomposer), nous montrerons comment et pourquoi des Amérindiens ont fait le choix de s'exprimer dans des textes autobiogaphiques écrits en anglais. Nous analyseronscomment le fond et la forme interagissent pour créer une « performance » narrative, une poét(h)ique de la créolisation, de laquelle émerge une identité stylistique et conjonctive valorisante à travers les textes de cinq auteurs : les textes du Mohegan Samson Occom (1765 et 1768), les deux récits du Pequot William Apess (A Son of the Forest de 1829 et 1831, « The Experience of the Missionary » de 1833), Life Among the Piutes de la Paiute Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins (1883), History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan de l'Ottawa Andrew Blackbird (1887), The Middle Five: Indian Boys at School de l'Omaha Francis La Flesche (1900).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".