<i>Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass”: A Publishing History</i> by Zoe Jaques and Eugene Giddens (pp 159-164)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
restore Dickens's credibility as a creative writer who was not losing his edge during the writing of his last novel, as suggested by Henry James.Lack of clarity was sometimes an issue elsewhere; this reader was left fairly muddled during the textual study in the second chapter, with its dizzying references to proof and manuscript pages, which was disappointing considering Grass's valiant attempt to trace Dickens's creative efforts through the book's composition.Grass ends his book with a rich trove of appendices, which include all of Our Mutual Friend's Victorian reviews, newspaper coverage of the Staplehurst incident, and an exhaustive bibliography.By illuminating the context around the writing, publishing, and reception of this novel, Grass succeeds in providing a rich resource towards the growing scholarship on Dickens's final work, and more than drowns out the harsh words of a young American critic that have too often dwarfed the book itself.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".