BOOK REVIEW: Leslie Howsam.<b>KEGAN PAUL?A VICTORIAN IMPRINT: PUBLISHERS, BOOKS AND CULTURAL HISTORY</b>. London: Kegan Paul International; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The eminent Victorian publisher Charles Kegan Paul chose for his firm's trademark the symbol of two trees joined together by the inscription "Arbor Scientiae, Arbor Vitae." As it [End Page 471] happens, this image of unified duality also fittingly illustrates Paul's own professional anxieties. As a serious publisher in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Paul sought to reconcile in his career the literary and commercial ambitions that Victorians assumed to be antithetical. He was a man of letters in his own right, and his circle of friends encompassed such literary lions as George Eliot, George Meredith, Algernon Charles Swinburne, and Thomas Hardy. As a man of business, however, Paul generally lacked the capital to attract the most acclaimed writers, and those who did work with him were often alienated by his attention to profits. In the words of Robert Louis Stevenson, who had published under the Kegan Paul imprint long before creating Jekyll and Hyde, "Kegan is an excellent good fellow, but Paul is a [damned] publisher" (qtd. 49; Howsam's brackets). The method behind Leslie Howsam's history of Paul is similarly dualistic. She attempts to trace Paul's influence on two levels, exploring both "the publisher's imprint upon a list of books, and publishers' personalities, the imprint of their taste and judgement on the culture in which they lived" (3). Paul's personal history thus provides Howsam's study with its tree of life, while its tree of knowledge grows out of the records of his firm. Combining biography and bibliography, Howsam hopes to contribute a nuanced and broadly significant portrait of this publisher to the history of Victorian culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.122 |
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".