Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December of 1877, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's "Kéramos," a narrative poem documenting international styles and techniques of pottery manufacture, was published for the first time in Harper's New Monthly Magazine. 1 Though Longfellow is rarely considered through the networks of his relatively infrequent magazine work, the Harper's edition of the poem, republished the next year in Kéramos and Other Poems (1878), demonstrates how such attention can shed light on conflicting ambitions in the poet's career and in the history of the magazine.2 Eliciting a series of gently concerned letters from the Harper's editor, and printed only a few issues before Elizabeth Corbett's satirical excoriation of international collecting in "Aunt Kerammik's Art Studies," "Kéramos" appears in the monthly at a turning point in American periodical publication.3 In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Arnoldsian notions of personal culture and cultivation were increasingly defined by an awareness of anthropological "cultures."Longfellow's artistic embrace of international modes of ceramic production shows the poet positioning himself, however tentatively, as a high cultural figure.Editorial hesitation within Harper's about this global focus demonstrates the monthly's uncertain placement in a changing periodicals market.And the humble ceramic pot becomes an emblem of the divided impulses in late-century American art collecting."Kéramos" locates the seemingly prosaic topic of ceramics collection within the social and business networks of publication in a way that showcases the complexity of both spheres.The printing of the poem within Harper's, in relation to other publications by the Harper and Brothers firm, reveals the publishing house's unified perspective on American ceramics collecting.Harper and Brothers publications on collection show a nationalistic bias that is reliably Anglo-American in emphasis.The consistency of this bias makes firm business sense: the presentation of "Kéramos" in Harper's serves to promote other apparently similar publications within the Harper and Brothers imprint.But the poem itself, which took inspiration from non-Western works, reveals a more
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".