Bibliographic record
Abstract
The richness and significance of Conrad's Polish background is today a commonplace. Every serious student of Conrad is familiar with his father's, Apollo Korzeniowski's, literary and political careers, as well as grim pathos of his exile and last days. Taking their cue from Conrad's own autobiographical testimony in his letters and in such texts as Author's Note to A Personal Record, scholars have related characteristic aspects of Conrad's sensibility and outlook to the exalted and dreamy temperament, terrible gift of irony and ... gloomy disposition of his father (CL2 247), while literary critics have discerned traces of Apollo's psychological and ideological make-up in various characters - Kurtz of Heart of Darkness, Jose Avellanos of Nostromo, Heyst of Victory, to mention but three often-cited figures. Or, to take a recent example, John Batchelor has argued in his critical biography that the post-romantic view of relationship between artist, art and audience is more likely to be indebted to Apollo Korzeniowski's mid-nineteenth-century post-romantic view of Shakespeare than it is ... to English romantic tradition (1994, 6). Similarly, Tadeusz Bobrowski, maternal uncle and other temperamentally and ideologically antithetical coordinate of Conrad's dual family heritage, has received, especially since appearance of Jocelyn Baines's Joseph Conrad: A Critical Biography (1960), considerable atten tion. Select passages from Bobrowski's letters and memoirs now form a crucial part of Conradian documentary canon. We have all come to recognize as a key ingredient of Conrad's polyphonic (largely bitonal) discourse Bobrowski voice: sober, ironic (not without occasional
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".