MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971110708 · doi:10.1093/res/hgm014

The Early Life and Later Years of Thomas Hardy: An Argument for a New Edition

2007· article· en· W1971110708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Dolin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of English Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)BiographySubject (documents)Life writingComposition (language)ClassicsHistoryEpistemologyLiteratureSociologyPhilosophyArt historyArtComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article calls for a new edition of the discredited Early Life and Later Years of Thomas Hardy (Life), written substantially by Hardy but with significant additions and deletions by Florence Hardy and J. M. Barrie, published in 1928 and 1930 under Florence Hardy's name; and makes an argument for the precedence of this edition over Michael Millgate's influential 1984 Hardy-only edition of the Life and Work of Thomas Hardy (Life and Work). The article argues that the Millgate edition mobilises two mutually validating conceptions of autonomous authorship: an editorial conception of the primacy of authorial intention; and a cultural conception of the primacy of the autobiographical subject. In response, the article retraces the history of the composition of the Life, finding that Hardy's secret effort to control the execution of his posthumous biography was not consistent with a disguised autobiographical intention. The Life declares the relational nature of the self, and represents that self formally and stylistically, as well as in its assumption of shared authorship.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of English StudiesSame topicThomas Hardy Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207