Notice bibliographique
Résumé
February 19, 2011 (11:48 am) E:\CPBR\RUSSJOUR\TYPE3002\russell 30,2 040 red.wpd 1 “Russell and His Obituarists”, Russell 26 (2006): 5–54 (esp. 6–13). 2 Lady Constance Malleson, who was always called by her stage name of Colette, had been in a relationship with Russell since 1916. 3 Telegraph cables laid on the ocean bed allowed news agencies to send transoceanic communications; clearly, they weren’t always speedy. 4 In the Daily News, Daily Herald, Daily Express, Daily Chronicle, Daily Mirror, Daily Graphic, Evening Standard, The Star, Newcastle Daily Journal, Edinburgh Evening News, Glasgow Bulletin, Liverpool Echo, Liverpool Weekly Courier, and Sunday Express. russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 30 (winter 2010–11): 149–54 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036-01631; online 1913-8032 WHAT DID COLETTE KNOW AND WHEN DID SHE KNOW IT? Sheila Turcon Ready Division / McMaster U. Library Russell Research Centre / McMaster U. Hamilton, on, Canada l8s 4l6 turcon@mcmaster.ca It has been several years since Kirk Willis’s article appeared in Russell.1 When I Wrst read it, I thought how could Constance Malleson (“Colette O’Niel”2 ) have believed that Russell had died from pneumonia? Willis takes her at her word (p. 8, n.4). I have Wnally decided to delve deeper, building on the evidence that Willis presents on the published reports of Russell’s death. i The reports of Russell’s death Wrst surfaced in Japan on 29 March 1921.3 From there the news spread to the United States where stories appeared in such newspapers as the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin on 21 April. Next the reports began to surface in Britain on 4 May but only as rumours; the British press was far more sceptical than the American. Willis reprints the account from that day’s Manchester Guardian and notes that the rumours appeared elsewhere.4 The last rumour of his death was printed on 8 May. Russell’s brother Frank quashed the rumours with his letter to The Times of 11 May (although the Times had never reported them). He noted that the rumours had “caused much distress” to his brother’s “numerous friends”. Willis prints Frank’s letter in full (p. 12). His denial of his brother’s death was picked February 19, 2011 (11:48 am) E:\CPBR\RUSSJOUR\TYPE3002\russell 30,2 040 red.wpd 150 sheila turcon 5 ra1 710.082740. 6 ra1 710.055420. 7 I.e. either 21 or 24 June (Oxford English Dictionaryz). 8 London: Jonathan Cape, 1931, pp. 154–6. In her unpublished revisions to After Ten Years, she replaced “of a death” with “that B.R. had died in China; I did not know that up by other British papers, including the Pall Mall and Globe, Evening Standard, Daily Express and The Nation. Frank had been contacted in mid-April. On 29 April 1921 he wrote to his brother: The American Associated Press rang me up about ten days ago to ask if it was true that you had died on 29 March in Japan. I told them that I thought it was very improbable Wrst because you wouldn’t do such a thing, secondly because you weren’t in Japan, thirdly because I should have heard if you had, and fourthly because if the news came from America there was a prima facie presumption that it was untrue. (ra1 730) Frank contacted the Chinese Legation who made inquiries for him. Subsequently he was informed that Russell had been ill with pneumonia but was recovering ; at that point Frank wrote his letter to the Times. He had also contacted Ottoline Morrell for information. She later wrote to Russell on 30 May: “We have all been wondering if you were really alive. Your brother … asked me if I had had any news of you or your death—but I could tell him nothing. I only fear you may have been very ill as I imagine there must have been something to give rise to this horrid rumour … especially I feel this as I have not heard from you for some time.”5 There is no evidence to indicate that Frank...
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».