MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7016184414

Whose Words Are We Reading? The Cartelisation of Anglophone Trade Book Publishing and Its Postcolonial Impact: The Case of India

2024· dissertation· en· W7016184414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueStirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingMultinational corporationAudience measurementHegemonyGlobalizationRevenueNarrativeIndigenous
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the global structuring of Anglophone trade book publishing, Indians can easily access books published by UK and US multinational publishers. Yet, Indian local publishers and authors often do not access an international readership nor the associated economic and social rewards. This thesis examines the contribution of cartelisation and multinationalisation in furthering postcoloniality in Indian Anglophone trade publishing. It also analyses the extent of that postcoloniality, how cartelisation has impacted Indian publishing and writers, and the role that multinationalisation has played.
\nTo meet these aims, I build upon secondary literature in publishing studies, book history and postcolonial theory. I conducted primary research via semi-structured interviews with senior publishing professionals in the UK and India. As a decolonising research method, I include my professional, personal and academic engagement with the research topic through autoethnographic vignettes.
\nThis research has enabled a unique contribution to scholarship. I found that territorial rights are perceived as normative practice within publishing. In this system, British multinational publishers claim the export markets of most former British colonies while US multinationals claim exports to Canada, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Due to this cartelisation and the cultural hegemony of the UK and the US, Indian Anglophone trade books cannot match the revenue generation of foreign books in both Indian and international markets. Thus, India is perceived as a ‘market’ territory, not a source of literature worth promoting abroad. Cartelisation became an ingrained practice because of multinationalisation since local publishers – which aid the development of the national literary space – cannot compete with the multinationals’ resources. My research centres on India and can be extended to comparative nations. This thesis focuses on the historical context and contemporary scenario of cartelisation, but I also offer recommendations to be executed within and outwith publishing to combat the postcoloniality of cartelisation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling)Same topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207