MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021738059 · doi:10.1525/ncl.2005.59.4.433

THE UNRULY COPIES OF DON JUAN

2005· article· en· W2021738059 on OpenAlexaff
COLETTE COOLIGAN

Bibliographic record

VenueNineteenth-Century Literature · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryMoralityLiteratureBlasphemyHaremRelation (database)OrientalismRomanceConsumption (sociology)Print culturePopular cultureMeaning (existential)ArtHistoryMedia studiesLawPhilosophySociologyAestheticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Lord Byron was among the literary elite of Romantic print culture, his combination of blasphemy, political sedition, and hedonistic morality also made him a great favorite among underground publishers with radical allegiances and unconventional morality. Byron's long poem Don Juan (1819-1824) was the fulcrum for colliding communities within London's rapidly expanding print culture of the 1820s. Increasingly aligned with an underground radical, libertarian, and obscene press, Byron's poem animated debates about the proliferation and mass consumption of popular print. The pirating of Don Juan's later scandalous harem cantos only escalated the debates and ultimately led to legal deliberation over the poem's copyright. In this paper I argue that the controversy that erupted over Don Juan was connected to the emergence of obscenity as a trade and reveals how obscenity began to gather meaning in relation to reprographic media, popular consumption, and orientalism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNineteenth-Century LiteratureSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207