MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1940695481 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2015.0047

Genre: “Distant Reading” and the Goals of Periodicals Research

2015· article· en· W1940695481 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dallas Liddle

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperReading (process)Complement (music)Tacit knowledgeGenre analysisLinguisticsHistorySociologyLiteratureComputer scienceMedia studiesArtKnowledge managementPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Victorian marketplace for periodical articles was largely structured by genre, which made working knowledge of genre conventions essential for both editors and writers. Because an understanding of genre is generally tacit rather than declarative, however, acquiring this knowledge presented challenges to contributors and would-be contributors—challenges that persist in a different form today. How can modern periodicals scholars reconstruct patterns and conventions of a discourse that even most of the original practitioners could not have explained? A “distant reading” case study on the newspaper leading article shows how quantitative tools may complement traditional research methods to illuminate the nature and development of historical genre forms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.036
Scholarly communication0.0190.021
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207