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 OpenAlexaff
H. J. Jackson

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0150.020
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Romantic ReviewSame topicBiographical and Historical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207