MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087458266 · doi:10.1353/vpr.0.0114

Lost and Found: Serial Supplements in the Nineteenth Century

2010· article· en· W2087458266 on OpenAlex
Laurel Brake

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperHistoryJournalismPoliticsPeriod (music)LiteratureMedia studiesArtLawSociologyPolitical scienceAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lost and Found: Serial Supplements in the Nineteenth Century Laurel Brake (bio) This title of this paper is testimony to the elusive aspect of this form in journalism, which always articulates a reference to a prior, primary text to which it is “supplementary,” but not always preserved allied to its host. As for the primary text, its routine conditions of preservation—stripped of wrappers, adverts, and covers—mean that it is not always evident to twenty-first century readers that it was accompanied by a supplement. What Gerard Genette calls “paratextual” portions of issues1 often advertise as a feature the “generous” provision of the supplement, and may even explain its background. Recent experience with a bound copy of the Quarterly Review is thus typical: without warning from a cover or wrapper, I found references to a supplement of prints embedded in an article on illustration in this text-dominated and rarely illustrated quarterly review.2 Nor was the supplement of prints to be found in that copy. It may have been extricated by the publisher for volume publication, or by a reader for a scrapbook or framing. Supplements are frequently lost, and many, perhaps most, remain unpreserved, unrecognized, unrecorded, and uncatalogued. An example of a supplement that has recently been found is connected with the Northern Star in the same period. In frequency of publication (weekly), its type (a newspaper), and its politics (Chartist), the Northern Star could not be more different from the Quarterly Review, but both supplements consist of images, one to reward subscribers, and the other to enhance an article. Both were subsequently separated from their parent publication, but that in the Quarterly Review was probably bound into the original issue of the journal, whereas the engraved portraits attaching to the newspaper were not. Rather they were distributed to subscribers by newsagents, at different dates in different parts of the country.3 Separately preserved in an art gallery, they have only recently been identified as supplements to the newspaper, and exhibited, separately from it, 175 years [End Page 111] after their issue. Last year they were reunited with the Northern Star electronically at www.ncse.ac.uk . As these examples suggest, the term “supplement” with respect to media has a breadth of identities and meanings, with a noteworthy diversity of form, distribution, and function. I want to consider the term further and spell out aspects of this diversity. Perhaps the dominant meaning of “supplement” at present is the notion of its defining status as Extra, added value, different, and with luck, “free.” It is part of the sales discourse of circulation – of a promise of novelty, and of the “address” of serials to consumer/reader; a lure; a come-on; a bargain; but sometimes, in a sleight of hand, issues with supplements cost more. This may be seen in an early Illustrated London News, a 6d glossy weekly where “With Two Supplements” appears under the price on the masthead, which at 1/- is twice the ordinary cost.4 For the duration of the Great Exhibition in 1851, the ILN issued double numbers weekly, which also cost a shilling, and when they ended, the editor informed exhibitors that they could submit drawings of Exhibition items they wished to display (possibly for sale?), previously covered in the weekly letterpress supplement/guides, as paid advertisements, which the editor promised to publish in an advertising supplement.5 The “supplement” element of journalism then is a means whereby editors and publishers may produce odd issues of variable sizes and prices in a regular serial; it supplements inflexible elements of serial publication such as length and price that are associated with the “brand” of the title in question. Supplements allow editors and publishers to respond to events (such as war) and seasons that would warrant additional pages, for which readers or advertisers will pay, while some additional production costs such as distribution are zero.6 Profits on such supplements are likely to be higher. Supplements are thus often associated with news and topicality. The guides to the Great Exhibition that the Illustrated London News published mid-century during the Exhibition itself, for example, were issued in conjunction with its regular weekly...

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 score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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