‘Our London, my London, your London’: the Modernist moment in the metropolis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has become something of a truism to observe that Modernism emerged in tension both with the forces of modernisation and tendencies in social, economic and political modernity. The example of London was to bear this out, especially through the complex cultural and political sea-change of World War I. By 1920 Ezra Pound had given up on London and had already drafted the Hell Cantos which took London as their subject. Ford Madox Ford retreated after the war to the country and thence to Paris and the USA. Lewis went underground, then shifted to the USA and Canada. Only Eliot of the canonic men of 1914 found ways to negotiate the post-war conservatism which had driven others from the capital. This antagonism between Modernist culture and modern metropolitan society was an expression of relations between the individual artist and the social mass, new regimens of work, and the apparatuses of mass production and consumption, but it was expressed in another way, too, by London’s relation to the cities positioned historically, geographically and mythologically either side of it. Paris, the ‘capital of the nineteenth century’, was in this scheme of things a city of European sophistication and advanced artistic culture; New York, on the other hand, was a brazen emblem of the new, the coming city of the twentieth century, and already in the 1900s an emerging finance capital and model of consumerism whose cultural life, at least in the eyes of its expatriate artists, was at best embryonic.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".