Bibliographic record
Abstract
My dissertation examines epistolary exchanges in the 1830-1850 transatlantic world as vehicles for the formation and circulation of ideas about the nation. Some of the innate characteristics of letter writing and letters, such as flexibility and high mobility, a wide temporal trajectory, defiance of national borders, and dialogical openness, made letters the privileged site where a transnational circulation of ideas about the nation could take place. By concentrating on letter writing and epistolary exchanges, I trace how, in spite of its emphasis on the national arena, the process of nation building in the nineteenth century really occurs within a cosmopolitan and transnational landscape, where observations about the nation, and national ideals circulate and are mutually inflected. The interesting status of the letter in the nineteenth century, as a piece of writing in between public and private communication, pointed to that space where individuals, away from certain conventions of public discourse, could most experimentally articulate their opinions about public issues. The decades considered in this study are a crucial moment both for epistolary production, and for the historical events revolving around concepts about the nation, in the United States and in Europe. Within these chronological boundaries, I focus on a specific group of writers, who had similar interests, who operated transnationally, and who were corresponding with one another. Margaret Fuller, Costanza Arconati, Giuseppe Mazzini, Thomas Carlyle, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, in fact, were in different ways invested in ideas and ideals of national belonging, and they considered themselves as public figures whether through their political career (as in the case of Giuseppe Mazzini), or through their concern and interventions in the civil and public world.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.007 |
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".