<i>Out of Print & Into Profit: A History of the Rare and Secondhand Book Trade in Britain in the Twentieth Century</i>, Giles Mandelbrote, ed.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
literary agents might have been enhanced with, for example, a sample enumerative listing illustrating the volume and variety of texts that passed through their hands in a given time span.Similarly, although Watt's and P)inker's literary acumen and editorial contributions are very well established by Gillies, refuting once and for all Heinemann's allegations of agents' purely mercenary motives, little is learned about the middlemen's actual part in the material editing process, or their working relationships with publishers and editors.Literary agency can provide an excellent framework for transnational, pan-textual print culture studies because agents' work was inherently international and dealt with all kinds of writing.A comparative study of agency outside Britain, where offshoots of the profession developed differently, seems indispensable.Gillies has broken important ground in her field, but there is still a need for studies of literary agency which transcend the restraints of national and disciplinary boundaries.Such new work would do well to emulate the consistent focus and depth that Gillies has achieved in her book.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".