“I’m really going to kill him this time”: Olive Schreiner, W. T. Stead, and the Politics of Publicity in the Review of Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
W. T. Stead’s popular six-penny periodical, the Review of Reviews , fully embraced the cult of personality of the New Journalism of the late nineteenth century. Through an analysis of the periodical’s innovative use of both text and image, this article will explore Stead’s representation of one of the key personalities of his flagship publication: the South African writer Olive Schreiner. For Stead, the enigmatic yet divisive New Journalist, Schreiner, the celebrated yet contentious New Woman, fully embodied the spirit of his publication. By tracing their relationship through the channels of both private letters and public discourse, this article provides insight into the level of collaboration that existed between newspaper editors and the artists they chose to feature in their publications, and points to the dialogic and often performative nature of the relationship between writers and editors in fin de siècle periodicals.
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 | 0.028 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".