MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402606761 · doi:10.1080/02759527.2024.2404275

Racialized Hostipitality and Narrative Resistance in Sharon Bala’s <i>The Boat People</i>

2024· article· en· W4402606761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dharshani Lakmali Jayasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth Asian Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)NarrativeArtHistoryGender studiesSociologyLiteratureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sharon Bala’s The Boat People (2018) is at once a trauma narrative bearing witness to the ravages of Sri Lanka’s civil war, as well as a powerful portrayal of the racialized interpellation of refugee-immigrants from the Global South. A fictionalized account of the Sri Lankan refugees who arrived in Canada on board the ships Ocean Lady in 2009 and MV Sun Sea in 2010, the novel challenges the facile and depersonalized portrayals of asylum seekers that are proliferated uncritically in media. Bala presents a humane and humanizing counter narrative that challenges the arbitrary naming, shaming, and dehumanizing discourse that labels asylum seekers as “terrorists,” “illegals,” “thugs,” and “foreign criminals,” all labels used by Canadian anti-immigrant factions to brand the Sri Lanka asylum seekers in The Boat People. In this paper, drawing on the Derridian neologism “hostipitality,” I introduce the concept of “racialized hostipitality” to understand how Bala sheds light on the racialized and bifurcated nature of Canadian immigration law. By demonstrating how immigration law embeds both hospitality and hostility, and how hospitality is conditionally offered only to the “good immigrants,” I argue that Bala’s novel unveils the racialized hostipitality that conditions Canadian immigration law as portrayed in the novel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth Asian ReviewSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207