Anticipation, Transformation, Accommodation: The Great Exhibition on the London Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians and literary scholars have picked the iron bones of the Great Exhibition of 1851 nearly clean. The story of Prince Albert's involvement with the Exhibition project, the public reception of the Exhibition as recorded in the popular press, the detailed engravings of the building, the objects and visitors that filled its crystal halls, and even contemporary literary allusions to the Exhibition and its associated themes are all more or less familiar to us. Although one might legitimately ask if there is anything left to add to this already impressive collection of critical work on an equally impressive col- lection of material goods, the vast, unplumbed depths of Victorian drama remain a significant void in the critical literature on popular representations of the Great Exhibition. In the most exhaustive of bibliographies of literary invocations of the Exhibition, the contem- porary drama is not to be found. This is not to find fault with any particular critic or research method. After all, the theatre rarely finds its way into discussions of Victorian literature and culture. And there are a number of reasons why. Victorian plays tend to be cheesy in their excesses; few of the plays have ever been considered canonical; much of the material is available only in manuscript form and, in the United States at least, only on microfilm. Despite the scholarly disrepute into which Victorian drama has fallen, the current paper
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".