MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4395040308 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2023.a925213

Staying the Course

2023· article· en· W4395040308 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rohan Maitzen

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCourse (navigation)HistoryAstronomyPhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Staying the Course Rohan Maitzen (bio) It may seem perverse for my contribution to a forum focused on change and novelty to emphasize continuity instead. Yet, looking back over the nearly three decades I have been teaching Victorian literature—reflections that have perhaps unusual specificity because for around half of that time, I have maintained a blog series1 about what goes on in my classroom—what stands out to me is that (to paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel), after changes upon changes, my courses are more or less the same. To be sure, "more or less" is doing a lot of work here. In some respects, my long experience of teaching is actually one of near constant modifications motivated by factors both external and intrinsic to my individual classroom. We are incessantly revising our departmental curriculum, with outcomes that affect both which particular courses I offer and the relationship of those courses to the rest of our program. Details of the courses themselves are affected by developments in English broadly speaking, in Victorian studies specifically, and in my own research: over the years, different texts, topics, and critical approaches have become more or less interesting or urgent. Students' needs and expectations evolve; so too, for better and for worse, does technology. For all of these reasons, I am constantly playing with my reading lists and varying my assignment sequences, which over the years have included reading journals and class blogs, letter exchanges and collaborative wikis, annotation exercises and research papers, group presentations and Pecha Kuchas, along with many variations on more traditional essay assignments. And yet the real work of my classroom, as I see it, has not changed much at all since 1995, although I have become more purposeful in planning for it and (thanks in large part to my blog series) more articulate in explaining and [End Page 29] advocating for it. At the heart of my teaching is the conviction that, as Aurora Leigh puts it, "the world of books is still the world" (Barrett Browning 26). This does not mean that my highest priority is engaging with Victorian novels in the spirit of what is sometimes called "presentism," tying their value—and thus the value of our attention to them—to their relevance to problems in our current world.2 It means that I focus on them as modelling ways of being in the world, and on the significance, in that respect, of their form—of what the contemporary novelist Ali Smith calls "the shape the telling takes" (21). To serve these goals, I need and want our attention to be primarily on the page. Indeed, my main goal for all of my courses, not just those on Victorian literature, is (as I wrote on my blog in 2018) "to engage and train [students] as readers": the vast majority of the students I teach at every level (now, really, including graduate students) are not going to enter the academy as professional literary scholars—but they are (I very much hope!) going to keep reading. My goal is to foster both the skills and the commitment they need to carry on reading as well (as intently, curiously, and critically) as we ask them to in our classes. ("Readers and/or Scholars") For me, this attention to reading as a portable, practical, and ethically significant skill is an extension of the underlying premise of most of the nineteenth-century novels I teach, which were never intended to be treated as static aesthetic artifacts but were meant rather as provocations to both thought and action—or, keeping in mind my interest in form, to thought as action. "All of our books," I wrote in a 2008 blog post summarizing my closing peroration for my nineteenth-century fiction class, in their own ways ask us to get worked up about "the way we live now"—using fictional techniques (intrusive narration, direct address, thematization, multiple narrators, sensationalism, comedy, pathos) and artistry to engage us. . . . A further, and related, feature of these novels, and one that seems to me of increasing importance, is the imperative they communicate that we, as readers, have a lot of responsibilities: to read well, to judge...

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)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,352
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,924

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,001
Communication savante0,0080,006
Science ouverte0,0020,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,3520,188

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 Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · 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.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetThomas Hardy Literature StudiesTravaux en français237 207