‘The present therefore seems improbable, the future most uncertain’
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The question of how digital scholarly editing and publishing can have an impact beyond academia has been widely debated in the digital humanities and literary/cultural studies fields. Kate Ozment in “Rationale for Feminist Bibliography” argues the field of feminist bibliography is “continuing work on women’s lives and labor by providing tools for feminist scholars to use in their work, while simultaneously building a framework that allows such work to flourish” (151). Tonya Howe has posited three interrelated areas for “Intersectional Futures in Digital History”: “theorizing the feminized labor of digital recovery, editing, and textual preparation,” “offering thoughtful and feminist approaches to digital pedagogy that are specific to the work we do in the period,” and “critically assessing the absences in existing digital projects'' (2). We build on Ozment’s and Howe’s visions for an intersectional future(s) in our digital scholarly editing project, The Lady’s Museum Project, which aims for a public readership beyond the academy to broadly publicize women writers’ contributions to the developments in education and citizenship for all genders and classes throughout the long eighteenth century. Our project continues the work of Jennie Batchelor and Manushag N. Powell’s Women’s Periodicals and Print Culture in Britain, 1690-1820s (2018)—the first comprehensive study of women’s periodicals in the eighteenth-century—by giving open-access to Charlotte Lennox’s periodical, The Lady’s Museum (1760-61). We advocate for centering the previously forgotten labor of early modern women writers then, and DH coworkers now, highlighting their importance and continuing impact for a present-day specialist and non-specialist, public audience. In this essay, we present the theory and praxis governing the Lady’s Museum Project to show how a digital-scholarly editing project can challenge the structural logics of print by creating a user-driven reading experience and social edition rather than a traditional, linear-based edition. We discuss the project’s focus on audiobook and social annotation functionalities in contrast to traditional scholarly publishing to reveal the importance of an intersectional-feminist approach for future editing projects. In framing our project within intersectionality, which, rooted in civic justice, transcends multiple academic disciplines, we strive to: reveal the feminized labor of digital recovery; use ethical means to represent multiply marginalized persons; capture the historical, oppressive structures in which The Lady’s Museum appeared in its context of eighteenth-century British imperialism; and, through consensus decision-making processes and implementing user feedback, create sortable categories and keywords that spotlight system-centered complexities. We argue that digital scholarly editing and publishing can have an impact beyond academia by recovering the textual authority of women writers such as Charlotte Lennox and supplying a basis for a public audience to engage with her work. In conclusion, this essay, by closely examining how marginalized women writers and texts had a pivotal impact on the foundational blocks of modern western culture, simultaneously shines new light on the benefits of aligning intersectional feminism with public-facing, transdisciplinary projects.
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 | 0,010 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,028 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,027 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,007 |
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 ».