Bibliographic record
Abstract
These words, which Shaw penned in 1906 as part of “The Author’s Apology” in place of a preface to his selected critical essays titled Dramatic Opinions and Essays and, twenty-five years later, to his three-volume collected essays Our Theatres in the Nineties, suggest the focus of my project: to explore Shaw’s construction of his own public expertise on theatre in his reviews for Saturday Review, published weekly from January 1895 to May 1898. His performance is at times subtle, elegant, and understated – a journalistic performance akin to the theatrical ones he most admired. At other times, however, Shaw’s rhetoric upstages his subtlety as he descends to pedantry and browbeating. Shaw himself suggests this very contrast by characterizing his project as part “siege” and part “throw[ing]” his adversaries “into the moat.” The patient waiting game of the siege is punctuated by brutal shows of force. Further, in playing the besieger and the thrower-into-moats, Shaw imagines himself simultaneously within and outside authority. After all, the besiegers are not usually the ones who do the throwing into the moats; the defenders are.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.011 |
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".