Hardy and Contemporary Textual Studies: Authorial Intention in The Trumpet-Major
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interest in the texts of Hardy’snovels was rather late in coming. Hardy’ sown extensive involvement in the two major collected editions of his fiction, the ‘Wessex Novels’ of 1895–96 and the 1912 Wessex Edition’, seemed to establish the ‘Wessex Edition’, the last complete edition seen through the press by the author, as definitive.1 In addition, until the first lapsing of the Hardy copyright in 1979, Macmillan’svirtual monopoly and many reprintings of the 1912 texts helped to entrench them,2 and there was little opportunity or incentive for major rethinking, despite a number of textual studies.3 But the late 1970s and early 1980s saw a renewal of interest in Hardy’stexts, prompted in part by the impending lapse of the copyright, and in part by dissatisfaction with Macmillan’s ‘New Wessex Edition’ (1974–7).4 Clarendon editions of two novels appeared, raising hopes that there would be a complete Clarendon Hardy.5 Although those hopes remain unrealized, the editions themselves, the editors’ and others’ articles on textual issues, and the new series of paperback editions that began to emerge once Hardy’swork entered the public domain, combined to make textual criticism of Hardy much more of a mainstream concern.6
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".