Romanticism: Comparative Discourses. Edited by LARRY H. PEER and DIANE LONG HOEVELER.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume of essays begins with a disclaimer that despite its title the term ‘Romanticism’ cannot any longer be considered to represent a coherent canon or outlook. The introduction briefly recapitulates the battle among the Titans of criticism from the postwar generation (Meyer Abrams, Hillis Miller) for a heroic ‘Romantic ideology’ but this collection prefers to settle instead for the merely Olympian or, in this case Foucaultian, scufflings of modern critics over ‘the issue of power’ (p. 2) in ‘common linguistic structures or rhetorical tropes and conventions shared by a number of written productions’ (p. 1). The present discussion thus separates itself from the old-fashioned study of genre through its attention to cultural power in discourse theory. That ‘Romanticism’ is no longer a credible monolithic term can hardly be surprising, since this way of referring to the era was the creation of a later ‘liberal’ generation that shunned the cranky vulgarity of party. Although we may not be quite able to renounce the convenient but politically incorrect label itself, multicultural criticism proposes refashioning in its own image the historical splintering of interests in a sort of virtual reality of pluralism. The 14 essays here were originally delivered as part of the International Conference on Romanticism (Marquette University, 2003) and their volume is part of a series designed to feature a broad spectrum of writing from the ‘Romantic’ and ‘Victorian’ period; both the volume and the series suggest an active interest in non-canonical texts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".