Bibliographic record
Abstract
Romantic and Victorian writers made both nation and empire central to 'English literature', a phrase that can mean either writing by anyone using the English language or writing exclusively by English authors. The second meaning implies that literatures are nation-based: English literature is the expression or the possession of England. But what about writers from Scotland or Ireland? 'British literature' is equally problematic; thus, even before the Irish Republic gained independence in 1922, 'Irish literature' had its own national and often nationalist resonance. From the Act of Union of 1707, which joined England and Scotland in a single polity, 'Great Britain' or the 'United Kingdom' developed simultaneously as a modern nation-state and as an expanding empire. Because Britain consisted of England plus the 'internal colonies' of Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and also of an overseas empire including both India and territories of 'white settlement' in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the interplay of nation and empire in literature is extraordinarily complex. Like Irish literature, formerly colonial literatures, often written in English, are now postcolonial - obviously no longer British. Throughout the nineteenth century, literary works not overtly focused on themes of nation and empire nevertheless played a role in the imaginative forging of English and British identities. Domestic novels - Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1813), for example, or Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield (1850) - can be read as microcosmic versions of Whig history, the success stories of their protagonists implicitly mirroring the success stories of nation and empire. As French novelist Honoré de Balzac declared, ‘The novel is the private history of nations.’ Further, many writers explicitly celebrated or criticized Britain and its Empire, often doing both simultaneously.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".