MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160944917 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2015.0043

Repetition: Or, “In Our Last”

2015· article· en· W2160944917 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Mussell

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhraseRepetition (rhetorical device)Context (archaeology)HistoryEcological successionLinguisticsSignificant differenceAestheticsSociologyPhilosophyMathematicsArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay considers the relationship between sameness and difference that characterizes periodical publication. The newness of the current issue is predicated on its difference from its predecessor, yet that difference is understood in the context of the past issue’s continuing presence. I use the phrase “in our last” to analyse three distinct aspects of magazine form: continuity, where past issues are made present in the current issue; succession, where the present issue displaces those from the past; and “the last,” when publication ceases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207