MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051068565 · doi:10.1353/bh.2006.0005

Anonymity, Authorship, and Recirculation: A Civil War Episode

2006· article· en· W2051068565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Gruber Garvey

Bibliographic record

VenueBook history · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistorySpanish Civil WarAnonymityGenealogyPolitical scienceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anonymity, Authorship, and Recirculation:A Civil War Episode Ellen Gruber Garvey (bio) Consider anonymous and pseudonymous publication. Pseudonymous publication allows a writer to authoritatively claim to have been a pickpocket, a nun, a Chicano farm worker, or a Cherokee orphan, without his or her name clashing too harshly with the assertion that the narrator speaks from the author's experience. Yet anonymity also permits squatters to claim authorship, or enables attribution to a person or type of person that readers and distributors would prefer to hear from. Publishers, reprinters and other sorts of distributors, and readers collaborate to create attribution and an understanding of who the author is. Although writers may not be the ones who decide that their works will cross dress, or travel in borrowed clothes or even uniforms, the tradition that grows around a work's authorship can have an intense effect on how the work is read and understood. The first section of this article considers some uses that the presumed authenticity of experience and gender of one writer allowed her poems to be put to, within what Meredith McGill has called the "culture of reprinting": the world of mid-nineteenth-century publishing in which exchanges and reprinting severed original names from works and reattached new ones. In this case it created a persona for the author in question.1 The second section analyzes one reader's use of that [End Page 159] author's poems and other Civil War poems in his scrapbook, as he mourned his dead son and reinforced his support for the Union. A case study such as this shows the power of readers' desire to hear the right voice speak the words they want to hear. Reprinting and free recirculation were facts of life of mid-nineteenth-century publishing in the United States. Newspapers and magazines picked up and reprinted one another's articles, poetry, and fiction, not always crediting the source publication, sometimes dropping the author's name, and sometimes altering the work. The process might be formalized through exchanges: newspapers that swapped subscriptions with one another and allowed free reprinting, with credit. Being reprinted was sometimes welcomed as a sign of an author's popularity; at other times authors resented their work being taken without pay or saw it as an even more hostile act, as Melissa Homestead's work on Fanny Fern has shown. Reprinting was sometimes at least partially controlled by an author.2 From newspapers, readers added a layer of domestic circulation by clipping and saving items for their scrapbooks to create home-made anthologies.3 Scholars have begun to look at the role of reprinting in shaping the reputation of well-known writers, but the circulation and recirculation of work through the press also tells much about how anonymity allowed publishers and readers to participate in, or even take over, some of the functions that authorship with a name attached occupies. A poet's name attached to a work, for example, suggests that a reader will find commonalities among that poet's works, and that the works will bear some relationship to the poet's self; while anonymity allows poems to blend into a general field of other poems that readers can see as similar, and permits readers to group them with war poems, say, rather than religious poems.4 Recirculation compounds the possibilities as in the case of this study, in which a poem moves from general newspapers to religious papers to anthologies and back again, gathering authority for its attributions. In wartime, people at home especially want to hear news of the front, and also to hear about the subjective experience of soldiers, to stay connected with them. So during the Civil War, newspaper reading assumed a prominent new role in the lives of many Americans, who scanned morning, afternoon, and evening papers to keep abreast of the war's progress; they were called out to buy the paper "at unusual hours … by the divine right of its telegraphic dispatches," as Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. observed.5 Newspapers included stories about the war, poetry, and letters from local regiments. People at home seemed especially eager to hear stories of soldiers maintaining the values...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBook historySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207