Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burney's career as an author might be labelled a failure: although she published four celebrated, best-selling novels, the works of the latter part of her career were skewered by the periodical press and failed to reach successful multiple printings. She wrote more plays than she did novels, whether from artistic inclination or the wish to take advantage of a lucrative market, but only one of these was staged during her lifetime. When it was staged, for one performance only, it met with derision not only from the audience, but also from the actors. Burney's final work as a living author - the Memoirs of Doctor Burney (1832) - was attacked more than any other, and her posthumous success as a diarist failed to revive interest in her later novels. Her career ended as it began: Madame D'Arblay was still 'the Author of Evelina', as the running header of the 1905 edition of her Diaries and Letters insistently stated. It is difficult to say whether Burney's 'failure', as I choose here to call it for rhetorical purposes, resulted from her miscalculations of the market or the difficulty, if not impossibility, of aligning artistic genius with popular taste. We can learn much about the history of the novel and its relationship to market forces, as well as about this particularly important late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century novelist, from an account of her travails with the publishing industry and the critics. In this essay I briefly survey Burney's forays into the literary marketplace, tracing her highly self-conscious, but somewhat unplanned, authorial career.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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".