Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing to an unknown correspondent in 1862, Gaskell insisted that ''I do not think I ever cared for literary fame; nor do I think it is a thing that ought to be cared for. It comes and it goes'' ( L , 694). The story of Gaskell's rise and fall in literary status is well known. That literary status has alternately gathered strength and dissipated in the near 150 years since her sudden death in 1865 from heart failure aged fifty-five, at the peak of her writing career: she was feted during her lifetime but fell into obscurity after her death. Yet, although the narrative arc of Gaskell's reputation is well charted, it nonetheless bears closer scrutiny. In the months immediately following her death, Gaskell's contemporaries cared a great deal about her fame. Newspaper obituaries and periodical press summations of her writing laid the groundwork for a reputation that was later chased into the shadows by modernism's onslaught on the Victorians, and remained remarkably unchanged until revisited in the 1960s and 1970s by materialist and feminist critics. Gaskell's reputation has since regained lost ground, and been given nuance and complexity - as much the result of shifting critical investments in literary studies as of the fact that literary reputation itself is now the subject of critical inquiry. Gaskell's reputation continues to have its champions and detractors. But most distinctive in the push and pull defining Gaskell's critical fortunes has been the way that her reputation has been shaped until very recently by a robust critical impulse to define her writing achievements by a single book.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.019 |
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".