Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of this thesis is the biographies and autobiographies published by Leonard and Virginia Woolf’s Hogarth Press between 1917 and 1946. I combine several areas of scholarly inquiry – biography and autobiography studies, modernist studies, book history, and the history of reading – in order to examine the intersections between literary and textual constructions of genre and the role of categorization in the book trade. My central argument is that diversity, as both the policy and the product of the Hogarth Press, allowed a multitude of voices, methodologies, perspectives, and subjects to co-exist at one publishing house and produced a body of works that goes far beyond the small circle of Bloomsbury with which it is usually associated. The variety of the Hogarth Press’s publications meant that its approach to genre was one of hybridity, oscillation, and ambivalence, but one that nevertheless found ways to position complicated works in the category-oriented world of the book trade. \n\t Drawing from unpublished archival materials in order to uncover relationships between authors, readers, publishers, booksellers, literary agents, book clubs, and critics, I argue that the Hogarth Press’s practices in publishing biographies and autobiographies informed the Woolfs’ writings about the importance and role of the genres in the context of literary modernism. Using material from the Hogarth Press Business Archive housed at the University of Reading, I offer detailed studies of the Press’s translations from the Russian of three biographies of Tolstoy and Sophia Tolstoy’s autobiography; two biography series of the 1930s; Henry Green and Christopher Isherwood’s fictionalized autobiographies; and Virginia Woolf’s own biographical experiments, Orlando, Flush, and Roger Fry. My analysis of these particular groups of works is underpinned by a reading of the Press’s whole list of publications between 1917 and 1946, a quantitative and qualitative analysis of which I offer in the opening chapter of the thesis. The 522 copies of Hogarth Press books and pamphlets I read are housed in the Virginia Woolf Collection at the E. J. Pratt Library at Victoria University in the University of Toronto.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".