Bibliographic record
Abstract
A B S T R A C T • This article sketches a theory of celebrity culture that relies on taking a longer view of its history than has been customary in Cultural Studies. While a number of cultural theorists have analysed contemporary celebrity, and a number of film historians have connected the cultural history of celebrity to the rise of modern cinema, this essay suggests that modern celebrity culture has its roots in the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century industrialization of print. It argues that a celebrity's branded identity circulates so extensively in part because it can be appropriated so easily. In order to trace in greater detail the processes of appropriation that drive celebrity culture, the essay takes the reception of Lord Byron (1788—1824) as a case study. The article surveys a number of nineteenth-century commentators who predicted that Byron's work would be unread after his death. It examines in detail the posthumous reprinting of one stanza from Byron's poem Childe Harold in travel guides, school anthologies and elocution manuals, showing how some fragments of Byron's writing were given renewed currency, in part, by becoming embedded in new contexts and refitted for new ideological purposes. It suggests that by understanding the infrastructure of citation, appropriation and redeployment that can turn celebrities from earlier ages into canonical figures for later ones, we can grasp how their original celebrity becomes obscured, and with it the long history of celebrity culture, which seems perpetually to be a recent innovation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".