Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Browning’s Beginnings: The Art of Disclosure, Herbert Tucker makes the intriguing suggestion that the higher criticism was “the Continental deconstruction of its day.”1 Certainly, the reception of the higher criticism in the Victorian periodical press and other sources foreshadows the kind of protests against linguistic and hermeneutical indeterminacy familiar to critics in more recent times. In parodies of the higher criticism, which take the hermeneutical principles of the higher critics to their logical extreme, a kind of interpretive anarchy prevails. For instance, one humorist uses the higher criticism as a pretext for rewriting Shakespeare, and produces a textual monster, in which Ophelia marries Romeo and Juliet runs off with Hamlet.2 The author of The Abraham Lincoln Myth, an Essay in Higher Criticism 3 attempts to prove that Lincoln was a historical fiction, the product of unreliable textual evidence and imperfect eyewitness testimony. In “The Higher Criticism,” a satirical poem by nineteenth-century Canadian humorist J. W. Bengough, texts and subjects-in-texts shift and dissolve in a manner we are more accustomed to associating with postmodernist texts and deconstructive readings.4
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".