Bibliographic record
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)
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".