MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119213972 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2001.0020

The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature Volume 4, 1800-1900 edited by Joanne Shattock (review)

2001· article· en· W2119213972 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosemary T. Van Arsdel

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributeNoticeMinor (academic)Listing (finance)HistoryClassicsWork (physics)Library scienceSociologyOperations researchLawArt historyPolitical scienceComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviews Joanne Shattock, ed., The Cambridge Bibliography of EnglishLiterature Volume 4, 1800-1900. Third Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. The combined erudition assembled in this volume is awesome. Heading a team of 180 identified contributors (some work was done inhouse ), recruited from the international scholarly community, the editor, Joanne Shattock, pays tribute to their talents, saying, "[their] professionalism and persistent desire for accuracy and comprehensiveness was salutary" (Acknowledgments, x). In planning this volume, the first to appear of a projected 5 volumes of the new third edition of the CambridgeBibliography ofEnglishLiterature (originally published as the CBEL, 1940, and NCBEL between 1969 and 1974) the editor faced a number of difficult decisions. Of primary concern, of course, was the content and general arrangement of the work. This work is composed of sixteen sections as opposed to six for the last edition, due mainly to a different system of organization . Whereas the earlier work listed all the subdivisions direcdy on the Contents pages, this edition is simplified by a single initial "Contents Summary" followed a few pages later with a detailed listing of subdivisions. This makes it much easier for the user and eliminates much flipping of pages. Those familiar with the now "old" NCBEL will notice immediately that the former distinction between major and "minor" authors has been abandoned, which is a welcome change because how does one determine the criteria for labeling someone "minor," and in the climate of the current revisionist thinking the rating might very well be reversed. Retained is the older practice of indicating authorship of individual articles by giving initials at the end. In a spare, cogent, well-written "Editor's Preface" Shattock defines the book's mission as a "definitive primary bibliography of nineteenth -century authors and texts" and identifies the two primary tasks faced by contributors as the opportunity to "update and augment the bibliographical details already available," and to introduce "hundreds of entries for writers previously omitted" (vii).The resultingvolume is Victorian Review111 Reviews more than 50% longer than its predecessor. Perhaps most interesting changes are the new additions which reflect research trends in the last thirty years. Recendy the Modern Language Association of America offered its membership the opportunity to reflect on the profession and comment on a series of questions, two of which were: "Did your field exist in 1900?" and "What is the most important change since 1900?" In the more than 200 replies received (published in PMLA, December, 2000, vol. 45, no. 7, a Special Millennium issue) the response to the second query was almost universally "diversity," in one form or another. Whether it was women's studies, multicultural change, interdisciplinary emphasis, new critical approaches, or other, all pointed to the consistent and relendess broadening of humanistic studies. In this sense the new bibliography is certainly the child of its time, reflecting the diversity and changing ideas of the current scholarly community, at die same time that is seizes the opportunity to build and expand on what has gone before. Some sections have been substantially altered, such as poetry, particularly for the years 1800-1835, which is now 5 times longer; listing of novelists has also been expanded. Children's books now notes more than four hundred authors. The source material for dramatists as well as nineteenth-century theatre is now more complete. Entirely new sections include Political Economy and one dealing with domestic matters, such as household books, domestic manuals, and etiquette guides, once thought too trivial to be noticed, but now seen as important cultural archives. The section on Philosophy has been expanded to include Science. One theme which vibrates across all die disciplines and reflects primary research trends over the last thirty years is material dealing with women. As their role in society has been reexamined new evidence of their importance is found not only in literature, but in "history , philosophy, science, English studies, and non-fictional prose" (vii). Newspapers and Magazines has added two subsections—"News Agencies" and "Press Organizations"—both the result of important 112volume 27 number 2 Reviews recent research. Used in conjunction withJohn North's Waterloo Directory of EnglishNewspapersandMagazine, 1800-1900, Series 1, this will provide an important new research tool...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.055

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207