Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literatures in languages other than English produced by migrant or diasporic communities pose intriguing questions for both matters of cultural sustainability and national literatures. Dan Duffy, in his article on Vietnamese-Canadian author Thuong Vuong-Riddick’s Two Shores / Deux Rives, begins by describing a visit to the Boston Public Library where he chances upon a surprisingly substantial collection of Vietnamese-language publications. Among the twenty shelves of books, he finds not only fiction published in Vietnam before 1975, American editions of post-1975 Vietnamese literature and translations of American novels into Vietnamese, but also a large number of creative works in Vietnamese both written and published in the United States. He pitches this opening as an ‘arrival scene’, borrowing the rhetoric of ethnography to refer to the arrival of the researcher among the subject of his or her study. Duffy is, in fact, an American literary scholar whose area of expertise is Vietnamese literature, and he was in Boston to attend a conference on America’s multilingual literatures, so his encounter in the library is not quite the chance event that it first seems. Nevertheless, he uses it to imply that for most Americans such a collection would be surprising — that few would consider Vietnamese-language works to be American literature — and to make the claim that ‘Vietnamese-language literature in the United States is a great untold story’ (322). A similar claim could be made with regards to literature in Asian languages in Australia. How many Australians would be aware of the number of literary works written in Vietnamese in their country? Are English-language readers at Wollongong City Library aware of the numerous works in Vietnamese on their library’s shelves? Would they think of such works as Australian literature? Transferring Duffy’s claim of an ‘untold story’ to an Australian context, I would like to bring a part of Australia’s Vietnamese writing into focus.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".