Bibliographic record
Abstract
Special Issue Editor's Acknowledgements Andrea L. Broomfield (bio) This special issue, done in honor of Sally Mitchell, would not have been possible without the support of many individuals, including the Officers and Board Members of the Research Society of Victorian Periodicals, who granted me permission to go forth with the issue. Bill Scheuerle in particular has been involved in all stages of production and has graciously answered questions that I have had in the course of editing. Likewise, Kathryn Ledbetter has been most helpful in the final stages of this issue's production. I would also like to thank Rosemary VanArsdel, Rachel Blau DuPlessis, Merrill Distad, and Martha Vicinus. These individuals have taken time to answer my questions, have graciously offered their perspectives on the history of RSVP and Victorian periodicals research, and have shared with me their memories regarding Sally. Without their generosity and enthusiasm, this project would not have gone smoothly. Most of all, I would like to thank the contributors to this issue, who have given so much of their time and effort to help create this collection of essays. Andrea L. Broomfield Andrea L. Broomfield is Associate Professor of English at Johnson Community College, where she team-teaches interdisciplinary courses in history, literature, and research. She is co-editor with Sally Mitchell of Prose by Victorian Women: An Anthology (Garland, 1996). Her latest article is “Eliza Lynn Linton, Sarah Grand, and the Spectacle of the Victorian Woman Question: Catch Phrases, Buzz Words and Sound Bites,” English Literature in Transition, 1880–1920 (September, 2004). Copyright © 2005 Victorian Periodicals Review
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 | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.213 | 0.160 |
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".