MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987873083 · doi:10.1080/10509585.2011.564460

What's Biography Got To Do With It?

2011· article· en· W1987873083 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Romantic Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiographical and Historical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiographyRomanceCriticismLiteratureArtHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biographers are major mediators of Romantic literature. Generation after generation, they have guided new readers to the works; in some cases (Blake, Austen, Keats), they have been credited with rescuing the authors themselves from oblivion. It was in the Romantic Period that both literary biography and the now dreaded biographical criticism grew to maturity. But the role of biography in the reputations of Romantic writers in general has seldom been considered and the terms we use in such discussions remain as yet ill defined. This paper aims to lay a foundation by starting from scratch. What do we mean by “biography”? What do we mean by “it”?

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.159 · 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