¿Anfibios?: el problema de la identidad en la diáspora angloindia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolLa produccion poetica de la diaspora angloindia en el primer mundo (especialmente en los Estados Unidos y Canada) se ha analizado tradicionalmente como una literatura que mira al pasado, imbuida por una sensacion de nostalgia, de perdida. En este ensayo, la construccion de la identidad de estos escritores se estudia desde un punto de vista comparativo, que percibe una serie de paralelismos y divergencias en ambas culturas, tan opuestas a primera vista la una a la otra. El proposito de esta obra “anfibia” ha de ser, principalmente, comprender las dicotomias estereotipadas existentes, obtener, asi, la coniunctio oppositorum y, en ultima instancia, lograr la supervivencia a traves de la coexistencia de ambos codigos sociales, morales y antropologicos, lo que posibilitaria unos patrones de conducta sostenibles. EnglishThis essay deals with the poetic production of the Indo-English diaspora to the first world (especially to the United States and Canada) which has been traditionally analysed as a literature that looks at the past, imbued by a sense of nostalgia and loss. Here, the construction of an identity is discussed under comparative eyes, which produce a series of parallelisms and divergences in both cultures so seemingly antagonistic between them. The purpose of this “amphibious” work is primarily to understand the dichotomies of stereotypes, thus to obtain the coniunctio oppositorum and, ultimately, the survival through the coexistence of social, moral and anthropological codes and the possibility of sustainable behaviour patterns.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".