Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thomas De Quincey and John Wilson both liked to portray themselves as solitaries in search of knowledge, intense experience, and the self, and their residence in the Lake District, coupled with their enthusiasm for the writings of William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, led many contemporaries to group them with the ‘Lake School of Poetry’. 1 The reality, however, is that both men spent much of their careers as deadline-driven professional intellectuals in search of notoriety and a pay cheque, and their writings typically emerged - not in rural isolation - but from within a concrete urban network of political, economic, and cultural alliances and oppositions. Wilson and De Quincey were close friends and literary collaborators for over thirty years, though the stark differences between them often put severe strains on their relationship. Both were key contributors to Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine from its inception, and each had a profound impact on the other’s magazine work. What is more, their friendly competitions and highly productive exchanges persisted even when De Quincey defected from Blackwood’s and began to write for the London Magazine , for the two publications had a good deal in common despite the bad blood between them, and De Quincey and Wilson continued to quote, praise, and borrow from each other even when embedded in enemy camps, as seen especially in the ways in which they each exploited both the persona of ‘The English Opium-Eater’ and the aesthetics of murder as a fine art.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".