Kulturoznawstwo porównawcze Stevena Tötösy'ego w kontekście środkowoeuropejskim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the author is to present chosen elements of the Canadian comparatist Steven Tötösy’s theory and their application in the analysis of the Central European cultures. In an attempt to restore the proper status of comparative studies, which has been lost in the recent decades in favour of cultural studies, Tötösy unites both fields in the scope of the synthetic concept of comparative cultural studies. Its main assumptions are presented in the ten general principles. They allow to define Tötösy’s project as, i.a. interdisciplinary, intercultural, pluralistic, Anglophone and methodologically reliable. The author points to the applicability of the above mentioned principles in the research on Eastern and Central European culture, supported by the analyses carried out by the Tötösy himself, e.g. in the works on the contemporary Eastern German and Hungarian prose. The author claims that “a more frequent and widespread application of Tötösy’s theory can result in preventing the fall of comparative studies into the sea of dead academic disciplines but also bringing about a greater interest for the Central European studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".