Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liminal trauma narratives provide access to the formal representation and the affective dimension of trauma. Anita Rau Badami’s multigenerational and transnational novel Can You Hear the Nightbird Call? (2006) is a case in point, in which in-betweenness is not merely a source of affliction but may develop into a stepping stone to a belated understanding of past tragedies in twentieth-century India and Canada. Through a relational and dialogical approach encompassing Indra’s net, postmemory, rhizomatic theory, and multidirectional memory, liminality is addressed in the family and historical spheres, tracing vertical and horizontal connections between characters and episodes, which, it is argued, challenge event-based models of trauma studies, stress the importance of emotional alliances, and promote the establishment of communities of memory. Ultimately, chronologies and hierarchies are discarded in favour of network arrangements as the most suitable way to deal with interconnected traumas.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".