Book Reviews/Critiques de livres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chloe Wigston Smith, Women, Work, and Clothes in the Eighteenth-Century Novel, reviewed by Danielle Bobker Scott R. MacKenzie, Be It Ever So Humble: Poverty, Fiction, and the Invention of the Middle-Class Home, reviewed by Katherine Binhammer Allison Stedman, Rococo Fiction in France, 1600–1715: Seditious Frivolity, reviewed by Anne E. Duggan ed. Sophie Vasset, Medicine and Narration in the Eighteenth Century, reviewed by Kathleen Tamayo Alves James Chandler, An Archaeology of Sympathy: The Sentimental Mode in Literature and Cinema, reviewed by James Brooke-Smith Amy S. Wyngaard, Bad Books: Rétif de la Bretonne, Sexuality, and Pornography, reviewed by Thomas Wynn éd. Claude Thérien et Suzanne Foisy, Les plaisirs et les jours; actes du colloque de 2011 à Trois-Rivières, Critique littéraire par Claude Gagnon éd. Florence Magnot-Ogilvy et Martial Poirson, Économies du rebut: Poétique et critique du recyclage au xviiie siècle, Critique littéraire par Sylvie Kleiman-Lafon Olivia Murphy, Jane Austen the Reader: The Artist as Critic, reviewed by Melissa Sodeman Jim Kelly, Charles Maturin: Authorship, Authenticity and the Nation, reviewed by Ashley Marshall Kamilla Elliott, Portraiture and British Gothic Fiction: The Rise of Picture Identification, 1764–1835, reviewed by Christopher Rovee
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.058 |
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".