MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977727501 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2013.0030

"That inscrutable something": Business in the Periodical Press

2013· article· en· W1977727501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Silvana Colella

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyPoliticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Reading (process)Object (grammar)DignityHistorySociologyPolitical scienceLawLinguisticsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The business life of the nation, in its commercial and political ramifications, was the object of intense scrutiny in the pages of Victorian periodicals. Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and using as database the ProQuest digital archive of British periodicals, this essay investigates some aspects of the cultural life of business in the second half of the nineteenth century. The first section of the essay contains an experiment in distant reading which analyses occurrences of three text segments ("man of business," "business habits," and "business life"), looking for collocative meanings and patterns of evaluation. The second part focuses on a selection of articles that explicitly take up the issue of the dignity of business.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207