The Growth of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu’: A Chronological Examination of Proust's Manuscripts from 1909 to 1914 The Growth of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu’: A Chronological Examination of Proust's Manuscripts from 1909 to 1914. By A <scp>nthony</scp> R. P <scp>ugh</scp> . University of Toronto Press, 2004. 2 vols. 825 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sadly, Anthony Pugh died before he could see this, perhaps his most significant contribution to scholarship, appear in print. Yet there is no feeling of a work left ragged or incomplete: it is a thoroughly crafted and impeccably researched magnum opus, and it will take many years of study to assess the implications of the analyses which it contains. Pugh takes up from where he had left off in The Birth of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu’: the subtitle of the present volumes provides an exact summary of the new enterprise. This is the most complex, fascinating and frustrating period in the genesis of Proust's novel, amazingly fertile in invention, yet chaotic in execution. What Pugh essentially aims to do is work through the totality of the Cahiers and other manuscripts, typescripts and proofs which were produced at this time, weighing up their place in the emergence and elaboration of the novel, their chronological position with respect to one another and within individual notebooks, difficulties related to dating and to thematic changes in the actual material, and generally speaking to the way in which scholars have engaged with this vast corpus. And he is not kind to them! Everyone (the present reviewer included) is the recipient of more or less sharp criticism for errors of transcription, interpretation or annotation; yet it is necessary for him to do this, in order to put forward as accurate an account as possible of Proust's novel as it unfolds.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".