MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048922468 · doi:10.1353/vpr.0.0119

What? How? Why?: Broadening the Mind with the Treasury of Literature (1868–1875), Supplement to the Ladies’ Treasury (1857–1895)

2010· article· en· W2048922468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jolein De Ridder

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDecadence, Literature, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryMainstreamIdeologyClass (philosophy)LiteratureHistoryArtPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawEpistemologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of the Treasury of Literature (1868-1875), literary supplement to the Ladies’ Treasury (1857-1895), perfectly illustrates how form and content of this periodical are inextricably linked. In this article, I demonstrate how the supplement, provided separately from the parent periodical and containing only fiction and informative articles, both in an ideological and in a commercial way assists to distinguish a conventional middle-class women’s magazine from its mainstream rivals. Simultaneously, I argue that the Treasury of Literature renders the Ladies’ Treasury more closely related to the late eighteenth-century ‘enlightened’ women’s magazines, a type of publication that vanished at the beginning of the Victorian era.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicDecadence, Literature, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207