Editors’ Note
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Editors’ Note Karen Bourrier, Kristine Guest, Christopher Keep, Daniel Martin, and Vanessa Warne This issue’s forum was inspired by the 2016 meeting of members of the Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada at Dalnavert Museum, an 1895 house museum in Winnipeg, Canada. Our contributors examine both the history of the nineteenth-century museum and the role of museums in the preservation—or, perhaps more accurately, the invention—of nineteenth-century culture. While museums that preserve homes or have their origins in homes are explored here, so too are small-scale domestic equivalents of the museum—the album and the mantelpiece collection. We hope readers will be prompted by the research and personal reflections shared here to think anew about the history and the future of museums and also to reflect on the role museums play, or might play, in our teaching and research. The editorial committee is pleased to announce the winning essay of the 2016 Hamilton Prize competition: “To Talk of Many Things: Chaotic Empathy and the Anxieties of Victorian Taxidermy in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” by Lin Young of Queen’s University. We warmly congratulate her on this outstanding achievement. Honourable mention goes to Justin Tackett of Stanford University for his essay “John Clare’s Poetic Treatment of Vocalization and the Written Word.” Our grateful thanks go to the advisory board members who generously served as judges for the 2016 Hamilton Prize: Kirstie Blair, Britta Martens, and James Hanley. This issue of Victorian Review marks an important, if melancholy, milestone in the journal’s history, as we say goodbye to Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Surridge. Mary Elizabeth and Lisa have been the guiding lights of the journal’s editorial team for the past decade. Under their inspired leadership, the journal’s look, from its typeface to cover design, was transformed and the journal’s finances put in order, first through federal grants and then through our current publication arrangement with the Johns Hopkins University Press. Moreover, they undertook to broaden the journal’s horizons, digitizing the back catalogue and introducing new features such as the forum, a venue that has not only included a dazzling array of established scholars but helped launch the publication careers of many emergent and independent scholars. Propelled by their energy, enthusiasm, and sheer ingenuity, the journal has become a force to be reckoned with, attracting some of the most significant and widely read interdisciplinary work in Victorian studies. According to JSTOR, 36,372 articles from Victorian Review [End Page v] were viewed/downloaded in 2016, up from 34,088 in 2015. Project Muse reports a further 12,613 views/downloads in the same year. That means, on average, 134.2 articles from the journal are viewed or downloaded each day, or 5.59 articles every hour. For this success, and for such more, we owe them our thanks and gratitude. [End Page vi] Copyright © 2017 Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».