MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087501154 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2012.0048

The Ashgate Research Companion to Thomas Hardy (review)

2012· article· en· W2087501154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliette Berning Schaefer

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipEnthusiasmHistoryCriticismArt historyClassicsSociologyLiteratureArtLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Ashgate Research Companion to Thomas Hardy Juliette Berning Schaefer (bio) Rosemarie Morgan, ed., The Ashgate Research Companion to Thomas Hardy (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010), pp. xxiii + 603, $134.95 cloth. In the introduction to The Ashgate Research Companion to Thomas Hardy, Rosemarie Morgan expresses her enthusiasm for Hardy studies by stating that it is her intention as editor “to excite the reader’s sense of [End Page 496] exploration and discovery” (19). She begins by describing previous “companions” to various aspects of Hardy studies and explains that this new work “aims at a comprehensive and authoritative state-of-the-art review of current scholarship in particular areas, bringing together an international team of respected and experienced experts on the key issues in their specialties, each providing a comprehensive reference to their field” (12). Because much of Hardy’s work was published in periodicals, many of the twenty-seven chapters refer to periodicals and serialization. Of particular interest for scholars of Victorian periodicals are Charles P. C. Pettit’s “Hardy Archives,” Sophie Gilmartin’s “Hardy’s Short Stories,” and Ian Rogerson’s “Illustrating Hardy’s Novels.” In “Hardy Archives,” Pettit emphasizes the continued importance of consulting and accessing hard-copy collections of Hardy’s primary and secondary sources. He explains that there is a “large body of Hardy criticism in book and periodical form published during the nineteenth and the greater part of the twentieth century that is out of print, has not been digitized and in many cases can most conveniently be consulted in Hardy archive collections” (59). Pettit outlines the main holdings of the Dorset County Museum and Dorset Libraries, which house periodical issues and photocopies of periodical articles; Yale University’s Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, which houses the corrected proofs of the serialized version of The Hand of Ethelberta; Colby College, which houses “periodical appearances of Hardy’s poems, fiction, and non-fiction writings”; as well as general holdings related to Hardy in the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas and the New York Public Library’s Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Collection of English and American Literature. Pettit mentions, but does not devote entire sections to, the Hardy Collection at the Eton College Library and the collections on the website of the Thomas Hardy Association. After a brief description of each of the six locations, Pettit provides contact information, including addresses, emails, telephone numbers, hours, admissions requirements, and advice on how to acquire access to various documents. In “Hardy’s Short Stories,” Gilmartin analyzes the short stories, including their publication in Victorian periodicals. Hardy’s relationship with the Graphic, as well as other magazines and reviews, is addressed. Gilmartin also discusses magazine versions and reviews of various short stories. After her general introduction, she provides a section on each of the collections and pays some attention to textual studies. In “Illustrating Hardy’s Novels,” Rogerson begins by explaining that although Hardy “did not have the opportunity to establish an enduring relationship with any artist,” as did Dickens and Trollope, he “was generally well served by his illustrators and . . . seems to have been satisfied with their efforts” (428). Rogerson then describes the particulars of illustrations [End Page 497] in eleven of Hardy’s novels. He identifies other scholars who have analyzed the illustrations of various works (for example Arlene Jackson) and highlights the nature of the illustrations incorporated. Many illustrations are included in the chapter as examples, but Rogerson directs readers to the complete collection on the Thomas Hardy Association website. An appendix, “Checklist of the Illustrated Editions of Thomas Hardy’s Novels,” briefly outlines the periodical publisher and illustrator for each of the eighteen works. This book as a whole is an indispensable resource for Hardy scholars, including those interested in the serialization and periodical publication of his novels, short stories, and poetry. The extensive seventy-page bibliography is divided into seventeen sections and “stands as the most comprehensive collection of critical works on Hardy ever to appear in print within the covers of a single volume” (517). Throughout, the footnotes are detailed and useful, and there are suggestions for further study of Hardy and his works...

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicThomas Hardy Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207