MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974365962 · doi:10.1353/vpr.0.0108

What's in a Name?: Signature, Criticism, and Authority in The Fortnightly Review

2010· article· en· W1974365962 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismNegotiationGeorge (robot)PoliticsLawSociologyPolitical scienceMedia studiesLaw and economicsHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an attempt to cleanse its book reviews of commercial and political overtones, The Fortnightly Review transformed critical writing by implementing an editorial policy of signature. Signed reviews no longer articulated the voice of a collective group but instead expressed the sincere evaluation of an individual. This change in format, however, destabilized conventional authority systems that had guaranteed criticism would not be read as personal opinions. This article looks at the methods used by George Eliot and Anthony Trollope, in their works published in the Fortnightly 's first volume, to preserve criticism as authoritative while negotiating editorial demands for signature.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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