Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phrase “post-postmodernism” has appeared in Contemporary Literary Studies since the 20th century, but what does it mean? Scholars have defined the term in various, often contradictory ways. Existing studies also rarely centralise race – an essential component in the transition from postmodern irony to post-postmodern sincerity. Hybrid Novels analyses post-postmodernism’s only consistency and certainty: hybridity. This speaks for a broader social issue concerning the ethics of categorisation and the conflicting labels imposed on subjectivity. Hybrid Novels considers landmark American/British novels by Percival Everett, Jonathan Franzen, Zadie Smith, and David Foster Wallace, published from 1996 to 2001. It positions these authors at the centre of the post-postmodernism debate together for the first time. This book suggests that 2010s autofiction further develops post-postmodern tensions of irony and sincerity at the turn of the 21st century. Major American/Canadian novels by Sheila Heti, Ben Lerner, Teju Cole, and Tao Lin are discussed, published from 2010 to 2013.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.008 |
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".