Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scholars of British Romanticism have of late become very interested in the suspension of cash payments, which, from 1797 to 1821, disallowed customers from exchanging notes for coin at the Bank of England and effectively made Britain the first paper money economy in modern history. Like their colleagues in eighteenth‐century and Victorian studies, Romanticists in the 1980s and 90s assumed the structural homology between money and language derived from Marx, Freud, and the Cambridge historians (Brewer, Pocock) that made the study of money in literature akin to the general thematic of representation. Recent work, by contrast, has shown that before and during the Romantic period, as commercial value came to replace the social meanings it had once embodied, questions about what money is, what form it should take, how it should circulate, and by whom were more contentious than previously understood. These contentious played a significant role in shaping the dialectical character of Romantic literature. Recent discussions of these debates have also opened up fissures in the field of economic criticism between advocates of “historical description” and adherents of “close reading” that will likely galvanize the field of British Romantic studies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".