MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076547863 · doi:10.1080/10509585.2012.674272

Vanishing Points: The Heterotopia of the Romantic Book

2012· article· en· W2076547863 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Romantic Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeterotopia (medicine)RomanceArtLiteratureAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article aims to establish a set of interdisciplinary practices to identify the uniqueness of Romantic books in particular and bibliographic change more generally. It argues that when we take into account the book at a synaesthetic level, we see a new relationship to the book emerging during the Romantic period that converges around the production of "vanishing points." Reading is no longer framed as something utopian, as in a medieval or early-modern tradition (from Dante to More), but instead as heterotopian, as the production of some outside within. Heterotopia, I argue, becomes the condition through which new kinds of knowledge formation as well new kinds of mediation become possible, up to and including the non-book. The Romantic book marks the beginning of the theorization of the book's end. Things liberate one from surveillance and … observation frees one from suspicion. Sciences that are not acquainted with objects can only rely on sleuthing and policing. (Michel Serres, The Five Senses 42) Acknowledgements I would like to thank Jon Klancher for the thought-provoking exchange on Romantic book culture that proved an inspiration for this piece. Notes This talk is intended as a resumé of my past and current research as well as new work coming out of the field by a number of scholars. For a recent showcase of such work, see the forthcoming special issue of RaVoN devoted to Romantic print cultures (Piper and Sachs). I am drawing here on the work of Lisa Gitelman, who makes this argument for the history of media more generally. I want to add here just how much my thinking about the lacuna in the Romantic book is indebted to Jon Klancher's The Making of English Reading Audiences, a work that was really the first to explicate the implications of the crisis of address that marked the growing schism between reader and writer in the Romantic period's increasingly commercial bibliographic environment. That schism, I want to argue, is reinscribed in the bibliographic poetics of the hollow that comes to characterize the Romantic book. For further consideration of the intersections of modern commercialism and the Romantic book, see Ferris and Keen; Franta. For recent work on the genre of the view, tourism, and Romantic poetry, see Fulford. For a history of the Romantic horizon line, see Koschorke. And for work on the relationship between technology and the picturesque, see Broglio. An earlier version ("preprint") of this essay, including illustrations, can be found at the author's website: http://piperlab.mcgill.ca/articles.html. As Gilpin writes in his essays on the picturesque, "It descends not to the minutiae of objects. The fringed bank of the river – the Gothic ornaments of the abbey – the chasms, and the fractures of the rock, and castle – and every little object along the vale, it pretends not to delineate with exactness" (87–88). For a discussion of the diagram as it relates to Foucault, see Deleuze (21–38).

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.184 · 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