MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2069883739 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2006.0052

The Wellesley Index Forty Years Later (1966-2006)

2006· article· en· W2069883739 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosemary T. VanArsdel

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian periodicals review · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIndex (typography)HistoryComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Wellesley Index Forty Years Later (1966–2006) Rosemary T. VanArsdel (bio) Long before there was a journal or a society devoted to nineteenth-cen-tury British periodical literature there was a Walter Houghton who, in 1958, embarked on a project to be called The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824–1900. Under his leadership it was destined to become one of the twentieth century's great and enduring feats of collaborative scholarship.1 Houghton's brilliance lay in recognizing what a vast unexplored territory nineteenth-century journalism offered to a scholar interested in exploring Victorian cultural and intellectual life. Until this time the great body of Victorian periodicals had lain dormant and mostly ignored by the scholarly community. No one had estimated the numbers of journals which had existed (later found by the Waterloo Directory to exceed 125,000 titles); no one had taken note of the fact that nearly every major Victorian prose author had published in periodicals at one time or another; no one had attempted to chart the proliferation of periodicals as the reading public grew after the 1870 Education Act; no one had recognized that specialist periodicals were addressed to all levels of society, from the lady's maid to Members of Parliament. Nor had anyone attempted to trace the enormous influence which periodicals had on the Victorian public in general. Furthermore, the Victorian convention of publishing anonymously (or pseudonomously) left the public quite unaware of who was writing in the journals they were reading. It was Houghton's theory that identifying contributors would be the first step toward unlocking some of the secrets of serial publication. Two circumstances brought Houghton to this work: first, he tells us charmingly, was a small boy of six in 1910, "who kept an index of all the fires in Stamford, Connecticut – time, place, and estimated damage – which required some research in the local newspaper." So a taste for [End Page 257] indexing and cataloging was born. The second event was his discovery during the years 1948–1955, while researching for his landmark book, The Victorian Frame of Mind (1957) that articles in journals he was consulting were largely unsigned, and that there were no published lists of contributors. Houghton maintained that he needed to know authorship in order to identify any personal bias of opinion: "An anonymous paper attacking the Thirty-nine Articles . . . would mean one thing if it were written by T. H. Huxley and something quite different if the author was the Bishop of London."2 It is difficult for today's investigator to realize what a wasteland Victorian periodicals scholarship was only two generations ago. Aside from The British Library General Catalogue of Printed Books (which also listed periodical holdings) and The British Union Catalogue of Printed Books, almost no major references were available to guide the potential researcher. Even the Catalogue of the Newspaper Library, Colindale was not available in print version until 1975.3 To be sure, a few brave scholars had produced monographs dealing with periodical literature: Hill and Helen Shine in The Quarterly Under Gifford (1949), but only to 1824, and A. L. Strout's Bibliography of Articles in Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. I through Vol. xviii, 1817 to 1825 (1959), but again only to 1825. Perhaps the closest effort at analyzing periodical titles came from Professor Emory Neff at Columbia University who during the l930s and early 40s had quietly directed a series of PhD dissertations dealing with individual periodicals, namely the Saturday Review, Fortnightly Review, Athenaeum, Monthly Repository, Westminster Review, and Fraser's Magazine. 4 These early studies were limited in scope, addressing only portions of the journals, not complete runs, and were tailored to suit requirements of the time that all dissertations must finally be published by a legitimate publisher in order for the degree to be granted. Because the world of academe ignored periodical literature these studies were decidedly tentative in tone, as if the authors were not certain of the lasting value of their work and worried that the choice of such esoteric topics might possibly imperil future decisions about tenure and promotion. Later much of this pioneering work was shown to be inaccurate or incomplete...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,084
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,280

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0080,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0120,007
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0840,052

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian periodicals reviewMême sujetIntelligence, Security, War StrategyTravaux en français237 207