Virginia Woolf's Renaissance: Woman Reader or Common Reader?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this carefully constructed book, Juliet Dusinberre explores Woolf's affinity on many levels with the early modern period and her sense of being reborn though the creation of an alternative tradition of reading and writing whose roots go back to the Elizabethans and beyond. Dusinberre offers a critique of Woolf's ideas through a discussion of particular writers--Montaigne, Donne, Pepys, and Bunyan, Dorothy Osborne and Madame de Sevigne--and of the literary forms of the essay and the personal letter and diary, forms traditionally associated with women. Questions about printing, the body, and the relationship between amateurs and professionals create striking connections between Woolf and the early modern period. Virginia Woolf was extraordinarily daring for her time in making her assumptions about culture explicit. In Virginia Woolf's Renaissance, Juliet Dusinberre reveals a new Virginia Woolf, more radical, energetic, and socially aware than the popular image of a Bloomsbury aesthete, who constructed a Renaissance for women to which she herself could not belong.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".