Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because part of the project of the "Black Studies and Romanticism" virtual conference was to shake up the structures and systems of regular conferences, we attempted to instigate “plenary collaborations,” giving two groups of scholars a space for a plenary, on a pre-meditated topic or set of questions, which might take shape in whatever way they together saw fit—whether a conversation, a scripted exchange, or something more creative. We were hoping that adjusting the format would better suit the virtual medium and likewise give everyone a break from the individualist, Romantic genius shape of usual plenaries. While each plenary gave extended time for individual responses, there were many touchbacks and nexus points, both during talks and during Q&A recorded at their ends. The first group of plenarists wanted to think about the colonial and decolonial means of knowledge exchange among Romanticism and other fields, in particular between Romantic-era writers and scholars and Black writers and scholars, which necessarily included some transformational practices for Romantic-era thinking and writing. To begin, Kerry Sinanan suggests, through the purview of womb theory, that Black Studies does not need Romanticism, but Romanticism needs Black Studies to think foundationally about the enslaved lives have built the material realities and ideals of liberation, freedom, and abolition. Matt Sandler redresses the early twentieth-century Black women scholars who had already been studying the period, then continues to explore how and why nineteenth-century Black authors made European Romanticism open to thinking about Blackness. Eugenia Zuroski, finally, contemplates alternative citational practices learned from Black and Indigenous folx as a mode of site-tation, which rejects notional counting and instead reorients knowledge as shaped by places, affects, and relations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.102 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".