Bibliographic record
Abstract
The un-Englishness of Modernism 'Modernism' does not just refer to the literature of a certain period of time, say 1890 or 1910-1940. The '-ism' suggests it was a distinctive doctrine, or at least a distinctive practice. Yet it is best not to attempt a strict definition of the typical modernist work. No two writers wrote to one formula (though Ezra Pound, an impresario of the modern, tried to get many to do just that). Modernist works deploy devices or manifest traits that include the following: (a) perspectivalism: knowledge limited to the point of view of specific persons (the most radical form being 'stream of consciousness'); (b) juxtapositions without copulas: the omission of transitional matter that would indicate grammatical, chronological or logical relationships; (c) presentation of images or events without commentary or explanation; (d) style of presentation so radically in service of subject matter that, paradoxically, style becomes the subject of attention; (e) parody of popular literary styles and, by implication, mockery of the general readership that made such styles popular; (f) learned allusions to literary classics; (g) mythic parallels to contemporary life and demythologising treatment of Christianity; (h) a governing principle of 'art for art's sake': self-conscious neglect of a utilitarian purpose for the work, such as to teach a moral or move the public to action; and (i) the manifestation of literary art in every sentence or line, as Joseph Conrad demanded of prose writers equally with poets.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".