The Reciprocal Relationship Between the City and its Subjects in Samuel Selvon’s The Lonely Londoners and Dionne Brand’s What We All Long For
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo busca examinar la importancia del entorno geográfico en el que se desarrollan las obras The Lonely Londoners (1956) de Sam Selvon y What We All Long For (2005) de Dionne Brand para así entender la recíproca e innegable relación que existe entre los sujetos y las ciudades que éstos habitan. Con este fin pretendo analizar el papel desempeñado por las ciudades de Londres y Toronto en la construcción y el desarrollo de las identidades de sus habitantes, así como el poder que los ciudadanos tienen a la hora de (re)diseñar los espacios urbanos. El artículo pretende examinar el carácter dinámico y fluido de la ciudad y busca identificar los efectos que tienen las comunidades migrantes en el proceso de reescribir y recartografiar los espacios urbanos a través del ejercicio de su agencia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".