Scraps and Sketches: Miscellaneity, Commodity Culture and Comic Prints, 1820-40
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay considers the emergent significance in the 1820s and 1830s of the market for engraved or lithographed images intended for use in albums and scrapbooks. Part of a wider development of the consumer culture for prints, scraps were a characteristic product in publishers' attempts to find a more varied and profitable market for their products. Largely derided by scholarly historians as trivial representatives of the debased and vulgar tastes consequent upon the democratization of the print market in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the market in scraps nonetheless offers an important insight into the ways in which visual culture adapted to change in this period. In particular, scraps drew women more extensively into the market place for prints, and were crucial in the development of an illustrated periodical literature. After offering a brief overview of the scraps trade and some description of the ways in which images were assembled and deployed in albums, this essay goes on to consider the reasons for the lowly critical reputation of scraps in an attempt to reinsert this genre more adequately into the historical narrative of print culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".