Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two more notebooks survived for a while, maroon-backed ledgers like the '57-'59 volume, and continued the record from late '59 to within three days of her death.The last of these contained entries for several months, and I destroyed it because I did not want her children to have to read it (in those days I regarded forgetfulness as an essential part of survival).The other disappeared.("Foreword" xiii) Ted Hughes wrote the above in his foreword to The Journals of Sylvia Plath, published in 1982.In a longer piece, "Sylvia Plath and Her Journals," published that same year in the magazine Grand Street, Hughes elaborated on the disappearance of the penultimate journal: "The earlier one disappeared more recently (and may, presumably, still turn up)" ("Her Journals" 177).What events would Plath likely have written about in this journal that may, presumably, still turn up?It would have begun when she and Hughes left the United States and sailed for England at the end of 1959-a blank notebook undoubtedly denoting a fresh start, as well as the uncertainty that lay ahead.It would have covered the nineteen months she lived in London: the search for and settling into the flat at Chalcot Square, her pregnancy and the birth of her daughter Frieda, the acceptance and publication of The Colossus, a miscarriage, the writing of The Bell Jar, and a vacation in France (that included a visit to Berck-Plage).It would have chronicled the move to North Tawton in Devon in the fall of 1961 and her subsequent life at Court Green: the birth of her son Nicholas, enthusiasm for gardening and country life, Hughes's infidelity with Assia Wevill, a trip to Ireland in September 1962, Plath's separation from Hughes, and the writing of the bulk of the Ariel poems in October and November.In all likelihood, then, the journal spanned the three-year period between 1959 and 1962, December to December.Since the last (destroyed) journal "contained entries for several months," it's
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.009 |
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".