Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hanging On: James Ellis, et al, 1970-1973* Rosemary Vanarsdel Late in 1970, VPN moved to University of Massachusetts, Amherst where James Ellis became lead editor, assisted by Richard Haven and Michael Wolff. Fortunately, by issue #10, 1970, some very hopeful statistics were published: RSVP counted 150 members at the end of its second year; VPN reported circulation at over 800, consisting of 500 individuals and 300 institutions; Bill Scheuerle's DNB project was nearly complete; and the VPP project counted 15,000 punch cards. Ellis, in "Remarks from a New Editor" offered two suggestions: that checklists should include "light journals" (such as those for theatre and the arts) as well as the serious ones being investigated by the Wellesley Index, and that British and American book dealers should be canvassed to search for runs of periodicals which might be available for purchase. Throughout the Ellis years one finds continuing reports of RSVP conferences; repeated accounts of the VPP project; continuing bibliographic reports; the first book review, namely Newspapers of Northumberland and Durham by Maurice Milne (no. 15, March 1972), inaugurating a feature which became a large part of later issues; and the beginning of the "Notes and Queries" section. Walter Houghton continued his periodic reports on the progress and pitfalls of the Wellesley Index. Perhaps the most significant measure of VPN's maturity was contained in the announcement (no. 15, March 1972) that the journal had stabilized itself as a quarterly to the extent it would in future record itself in volumes, rather than numbers, for each issue beginning with volume 5. The content of these years was, admittedly, rather "thin." This was due to two features: 1) preoccupation with getting the VPP project firmly established and its eventual conversion to the Waterloo Directory, and 2) a continued monitoring of Houghton's Wellesley Index and its [End Page 12] editorial problems. There were also conference announcements (RSVP's third, fourth, and fifth sessions) and occasional reprints. Perhaps the most important piece of research was Robert H. Tener's checklist of "The Writings of Richard Holt Hutton: A Checklist of Identifications" which occupied the whole of the no. 17 (Sept. 1972) issue. But mainly the content for these issues was pedestrian and what later editors would regard as "housekeeping," rather than scholarly leadership. However, this was through no fault of the editors, but rather a pause on the way to a greater maturity for the journal. Footnotes Regrettably, due to ill health, James Ellis was unable to contribute this essay [End Page 13] Copyright © 2008 Victorian Periodicals Review
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.077 |
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".