J. Gerald Kennedy and Leland S. Person (eds),<i>The American Novel to 1870</i>.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DURING the 1930s and 1940s—the Golden Age of Literary Scholarship—literary history was the crowning endeavour of the discipline. New Criticism subsequently cast a pall over the study of literature that has lingered for decades. The past few years have seen a new interest in literary history, however. This renaissance has not been driven by the academic community, which remains spellbound by critical theory. Rather, it has been motivated by a few keen editors at a few major university presses, who have recognized the importance of literary history and are doing what they can to perpetuate it. Traditionally, major literary histories have been organized by nation. The Oxford History of the Novel in English , a projected twelve-volume set, is organized by language instead of nationality. The organization makes good sense, allowing volume editors to cover not only British and American novels, but also novels in English from Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the South Pacific. The American Novel to 1870 , edited by J. Gerald Kennedy and Leland S. Person, forms the fifth volume. Organized in a roughly chronological manner, the volume is divided into seven parts, all containing from four to eight chapters each. In Chapter 1, ‘Before the American Novel’, for example, Betsy Erkkila discusses colonial American prose preceding the novel’s emergence: autobiographies, histories, travels. Predictably, she devotes the fullest attention to Mary Rowlandson and Olaudah Equiano. She avoids discussing early American verse as a precursor to the novel: a possible error. After all, the quest for an American epic poem embodied the same creative impulse as the great American novel, that is, to write a work commensurate with the greatness of the nation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it