36th International Byron Society Conference 'Byron and the Book' Boston, 26–31 July 2010
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I skipped St Andrews, passed on Paris and missed Messolonghi, so I was particularly looking forward to this year's International Byron Society Conference in Boston. The theme was 'Byron and the Book'. This seemingly straightforward title was actually cleverly chosen to encompass a number of interests. It reflects the recent trend towards 'Book History' in literary criticism, which encourages us to pay attention to the physical books in which literary texts are incarnated. In some respects, academic critics may still be catching up with the Byronic amateurs here, many of whom have an enviable knowledge of early Byron editions. The conference theme also reflects Byron's own concern with the physical production of his books: '[Murray] wants it in Quarto, which is a cursed unsaleable size', he complained while Childe Harold's Pilgrimage was at the printers. The conference began with three papers on Byron's appearances in fiction. D. Michael Jones (Connecticut) presented an analysis of Byronic afterlives in the romance revival of the 1880s, G. Todd Davis (Kentucky State) drew on his extensive survey of novels featuring Byronic elements to discuss the persistence of fictionalised Byrons and William Lofdahl (Marquette) examined the Byronic figure of the Regency villain in Catherine Gore's Cecil. The second panel, on Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, was composed of graduate students. Lauren Neefe (SUNY Stony Brook) considered epistolarity in the poem, Matthew Ocheltree (Harvard) examined its dialectic of stasis and renewal and Elizabeth Rees (Fordham) read Canto III as engaging with the impossible demands placed on a sequel both to repeat the original and to innovate. A notable feature of this conference was the two roundtable discussions on editing organised by Andrew Stauffer (Virginia) and touchingly dedicated by him to the memory of Andrew Nicholson, who could always be relied upon to enliven the Byron conferences he attended in the past. The first roundtable had a digital flavour, and included presentations by five editors. David Radcliffe (Virginia Tech) introduced his work on the digital archive, Lord Byron and his Time (lordbyron.org). Neil Fraistat (Maryland), editor of Shelley and of the Romantic Circles website, described his wish list for future digital editions and online archives. Paul Curtis (Moncton), who is working on a digital edition of Byron's correspondence based on new transcriptions from the original documents, described the rigours of text encoding and its potential for creating new kinds of reading. Juli McLoone (Texas at San Antonio) described her work on the Leigh Hunt letters at the University of Iowa, a project that found an innovative solution to funding shortfalls by crowd-sourcing the transcription of numerous documents. All five contributors shared an enthusiasm for the potential of digital editions to become powerful new tools for reading and scholarship, but they all also emphasised the enormous labour required to produce editions that are reliable, durable and fully searchable. A panel on 'Byron and the Good Book' followed, with fascinating papers by Wolf Hirst (Haifa) and Gale Bouchard (Moncton). Hirst - along with Bernard Beatty, Travis Looper and others - has long been showing us in detail how well Byron knew the Bible, and how seriously he took it. Hirst pointed out that Cain, although it was widely condemned as heretical and even blasphemous, follows Genesis almost word for word. Once you realise that, of course, you start to look at the points where Byron's paraphrase differs from scripture. Hirst and Bouchard both picked out one example in particular. In the King James Bible, when the angel asks him where his brother is, Cain says 'Am I my brother's keeper?'; in Cain, he says 'Am I then my brother's keeper?'. The tiny addition turns his question from an insolent rhetorical rejoinder into an express of Cain's dawning awareness of the nature of the violation he has committed. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,347 | 0,139 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».