Introduction: Into the Eurozone: European Dimensions of British Romanticism, Then and Now
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of Enlightenment tend to take as their starting point the issue of whether the movement should be regarded as a unified phenomenon, based not only on circulation of texts but on networks of personal connection, such as Hume in Paris and Gibbon in Geneva, and Voltaire and Rousseau in Britain. European Romanticism tends to be perceived apart from these interactions, instead divided up into indigenous traditions, each embedded in its own distinctive language, ethnicity and popular culture. In contrast to the exhaustive attention paid to colonial contexts, comparatively little has been given to the interrelation of British Romanticism to other European national variants. James Chandler’s Cambridge History of English Romantic Literature (2009) does not even have an index entry for Europe. It includes essays by David Simpson on ‘France, Germany, America’, Esther Schor on ‘The “Warm South”’, and Mary Favret on ‘Writing, Reading and the Scenes of War’; overall coverage, however, remains minimal. Nicholas Roe’s Romanticism: An Oxford Guide allots ten pages of over 700 to one essay on ‘Europe’ by Christoph Bode, while Michael Ferber’s Companion to European Romanticism omits Scandinavia, Holland and Belgium, Portugal and almost the whole of Eastern Europe (only containing entries on Poland and Russia). This collection seeks to consider what British Romanticism looks like when its own international connections and circulations are taken into account. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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".