Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nudelman’s essay examines Mary McCarthy’s Vietnam journalism in light of the challenge that modern warfare posed to realist method, and the experiments in narrative journalism that resulted. In the aftermath of Hiroshima, McCarthy feared that realism could not describe social conditions that staggered perception and belief. Despite these doubts, she traveled to Saigon in 1967 and to Hanoi a year later to report on the US war in Vietnam for the New York Review of Books. Both trips resulted in a series of essays that were quickly collected and published in book form. If Vietnam (1967) mounts a fierce critique of objectivity, instrumental to the conduct of the war, Hanoi (1968) forgoes journalistic convention altogether in favor of a subjective account of McCarthy’s difficult experience in North Vietnam. Taken together, these volumes chart a course from detached commentary to disorienting immersion as McCarthy divests herself of reportorial omniscience and pursues a painful form of self-knowledge in its stead. Situating these essays at the intersection of literary experiments in hybrid form and activist critiques of US militarism, Nudelman argues that McCarthy’s writing from Vietnam makes a vital contribution to the evolution of narrative journalism and illuminates the role of war—and war resistance—in shaping the genre.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".