MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254254579 · doi:10.1017/upo9781844654840.008

Balancing the books

2010· book-chapter· en· W2254254579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damon Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuckLiteratureDramaTastePoetryDilemmaHistoryGermanQuarter (Canadian coin)ArtClassicsArt historyPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bookstore, home of delights and haunt of fancy. (Henry James, A Small Boy and Others , 1913) “Buying books would be a good thing,” quipped Schopenhauer, “if one could also buy the time to read them in.” In this, the misanthropic German revealed the dilemma for all book lovers: so many books, so little time. According to the US trade magazine Publishers Weekly , a quarter of a million books are published annually in the United States alone. Once you allow for language, genre, taste and luck, it's still possible to be intrigued or provoked by hundreds of titles every year. And then there are all the old books: from ancient works of Greek philosophy, Roman drama or Japanese religion, to last year's missed blockbuster. Unlike films or paintings, these works can't be enjoyed in an hour. We have to devote days and weeks to them. (This was the rationale behind T. S. Eliot's terse defence of poetry in the modern age: “It takes up less space.”) Put simply, literature is yet another forum for distraction; a chance to be waylaid by less valuable pursuits. With this in mind, I've written a few words on the more charming, profound or authoritative books and essays I've read for Distraction . Most titles are stocked in universities or public collections, but some are worth buying. A home library is a wonderful thing – it offers continuity, access and inspiration. Perhaps most importantly, it stands as an enduring emblem of our ambitions and experiences.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0240.023
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1870.102

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207