Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past twenty years, modernist studies has radically revised the conventional wisdom about modernism and its relationship to commerce, capitalism, and mass culture. Rejecting the claim that modernism was a mandarin movement, headed by highbrow reactionaries such as T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, the new modernist scholarship points to the many and forgotten links between modernism and mass culture. Certainly, links between the two had always been acknowledged, but they were connections of anathema: high modernist works such as The Cantos , “The Hollow Men,” and even Ulysses were read as execrating mass culture, especially the kind of mass culture produced by capitalism. It followed, then, that modernist writers saw themselves as above the marketplace: to them mass popularity or success in the market was a sign of artistic failure. But modernist writers such as Pound and Joyce were deeply involved in the marketplace and in the outlets of mass culture and not just to condemn them. This is nowhere clearer than in the relationship of modernist writers to their publishers. Throughout his career Pound published with very small presses as well as with large trade publishers in the USA and Britain, for whom he helped shape marketing and promotion campaigns for his books. Like modernism itself, Pound's publishing history describes an oscillation between coterie and crowd, between highbrow and middlebrow, between private presses and commercial establishments. And in this Pound becomes, perhaps, the signal example of modernism's ambivalence about commercial publishing, of the modernist desire to reach (and convert) a mass audience and its fierce insistence that it was aimed at the few.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.564 | 0.524 |
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".