Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 29th International Byron Conference was held at University of Liverpool between 19th and 24th of August 2003. It opened with a welcome session in main lecture theatre of 1830s building of Liverpool Medical Institute. This is a very fine, wood-panelled and balconied theatre-very like, I imagine, kind of lecture theatre in which Coleridge and Hazlitt would have given their lectures. The conference was officially got under way with addresses by Professor Philip Davis (Head of English at Liverpool), Professor Drummond Bone (Liverpool's Vice- Chancellor) and Mr Ron Gould (Lord Mayor of Liverpool). The conference theme was 'Byron and Good Life', with a minor theme of 'Byron and Sea'. Vincent Newey (Leicester) got discussion of 'Byron and Good Life' off to an excellent start with 'Good Life, Bad Life: Byron, Dickens and Adventure of Georg Simmel'. Uncovering numerous hidden quotations from and references to Byron across Dickens's work, Newey argued that Dickens's critique of English aristocracy was mainly based on his reading of Norman Abbey cantos of Don Juan. Acknowledging a fundamental difference between Byronic celebration of 'the classical body' in Childe Harold IV and rather more Dickensian province of 'the grotesque body', Newey nevertheless uncovered traces of former in account of Steerforth's death in David Copperfield, suggesting that death of Steerforth in some ways depicts nineteenth-century death of Byronism. The first panel of conference was opened by Corinna Russell (Cambridge). Her paper, 'Reading the moral of all human tales: Childe Harold IV and Wreck of Good Life', carefully distinguished between ethical and moral and argued that Byron's understanding of morality was not primarily to do with interior intents but with public realm of actions. Shobhana Bhattacharji (Delhi) spoke on complexities involved in reading Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. She argued that meaning of poem is bound up with its gaps and with silences, and that reader picks up more of permanent paradoxes of poem than they can wholly explain. This, she demonstrated, is part of difficulty of Childe Harold. After a five minute mid-session break (an innovation much appreciated by delegates), Paul M. Curtis (Moncton-and organiser of next year's International Conference, on 'Byron and Sublime', to be held at his university) and Michael O'Neill (Durham) gave their papers. Curtis's 'Prophecy and Prophetic in Byron's Poetry and Drama' was concerned with Byron's relationship with prophetic tradition and prophetic habits of mind. Michael O'Neill's paper, 'A Stalking Oracle: Beppo and Good' made an interesting distinction between 'attention' and 'curiosity', then contrasted 'attention' with what O'Neill argued is pure 'curiosity' of Beppo-a curiosity through which selfconsciousness is lost and world is simply relished. In afternoon we moved to University's Senate Room for another four-paper session. First we heard Tony Howe (Cambridge) speak on 'Byron's The Island and Choice of Good Lives' and David Roessel, winner of Elma Dangerfield Prize for In Byron's Shadow, on 'Seeking a Soldier's Grave: Byron and a Good Death'. Tony Howe bravely declared that ending of The Island is flawed. David Roessel showed how Tennessee Williams made a play out of image of Byron's heroic death in Greece without, it seems, knowing anything about poet at all. After break, Gavin Hopps (Aachen) gave a fine paper on what he called Byron's 'porousness' that distinguished between Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, in which Byron constantly moves outwards, towards and into space and art works, and Don Juan, where Byron does opposite and brings a whole metaphysical world into Norman Abbey and Aurora Raby. Hopps's distinctive terminology-the 'porous', 'penetrable' and 'leaky' were some of his terms-echoed through rest of conference. …
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.385 | 0.165 |
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".