Clare Archer-Lean. Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Writings of Thomas King and Colin Johnson (Mudrooroo). Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2006 [Book review]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archer-Lean’s book is an analysis of representations and representativeness. The context is the post-colonial and post-modern end of the millennium in settler societies like Australia and Canada, where the traditional Eurocentric notions of identity and representation are challenged by the rising voices of Indigenous discourses. Comparing two distant and apparently diverse writers like the Indigenous Canadian Thomas King and the Indigenous Australian Colin Johnson, Archer-Lean pursues the similarities that unite their projects in undermining the past representations of Indigeneity. The differences between the two – cultural, thematic, stylistic – are thus acknowledged but partially put aside, in an attempt to focus on the ways in which both authors deal with the question of identity and the act of textual representation. The cross-cultural analysis centres on in the two writers’ common focus on semiotic fields and meta-discursive and intertextual practices aimed at unmasking the colonial discourses. The works analysed are mainly the novels of the two authors: whereas Johnson has written also poetry and plays, and King film, television and radio drama scripts, Archer-Lean limits her analysis to their novelistic production. Another self-imposed limit is in the theoretical approach: whereas the analysis draws from a wide range of theoretical sources, post-modern and feminist interpretations are almost omitted, and post-colonial theory is used “critically” because of King’s and Johnson’s similar scepticism about it; post-colonial terminology like “rehearsal,” “hybridity” and “magic realism” informs the book but is re-visited and re-appropriated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".