MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Editors' Introduction: Other People's Roths

2017· article· en· W2751078053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Brauner, Debra Shostak

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilip Roth Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Jewish Fiction Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndignationPersonaArtArt historyPublishingLiteratureSociologyHumanitiesLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editors' Introduction Other People's Roths David Brauner (bio) and Debra Shostak (bio) Ever since its inception, Philip Roth Studies has been publishing essays dealing with Roth's relationships with other writers, exploring the ways in which his work has directly influenced, and been influenced by, novelists, dramatists, poets, philosophers, and critics; and the ways in which his works can be read intertextually—placed in dialogue with that of precursors, peers, and a younger generation of writers. In this special issue, however, we wanted to highlight some of the ways in which Roth (which is to say, his work, his public persona, and his cultural presence) has been adapted, appropriated, and translated (literally and metaphorically) by others. Consequently, this special issue features a range of forms to explore the Roths that emerge in and around other voices. We include academic essays—on the film adaptations of The Humbling (by Andrew Gordon) and Indignation (by David Gooblar), on Listen Up Philip (which implicitly invokes Roth not just in its title but in numerous other ways articulated by Tanguy Bérenger), on the uses Jonathan Franzen has made of Roth in his fiction and non-fiction (by Michael Kalisch) and on the uses Roth has made of Yeats (by Jack Knowles). The issue is enriched by an account of the challenges and opportunities afforded by the process of translating Roth into Hungarian (by Anna Nemes), an interview with a visual and performance artist (Bryan Zanisnik) who has developed a complex relationship with Roth over the course of a number of artworks and a legal dispute, and an exuberantly satirical reinvention of Roth in the form of a story by Tim Parrish, who will be known to many readers of the journal for his excellent body of critical work on Roth. What unites all these pieces—and all the various versions of Roth that these artists, film-makers, translators, and writers have produced—is a tension between reverence and irreverence, and/or a struggle to arrive at an authentic version of Roth that is at the same time a subjective reinvention of him. In this way, "Other People's Roths" both contributes to existing conversations on Roth and begins new ones. [End Page 6] David Brauner David Brauner is Professor of Contemporary Literature at The University of Reading (UK) and Executive Co-editor of Philip Roth Studies. He is the author of three books: Post-War Jewish Fiction: Ambivalence, Self-Explanation and Transatlantic Connections (Palgrave/Macmillan, 2001), Philip Roth (Manchester University Press, 2007) and Contemporary American Fiction (Edinburgh University Press, 2010). He is the co-editor of The Edinburgh Companion to Modern Jewish Fiction (2015) with Axel Stähler and of a special Lorrie Moore issue of The Journal of American Studies (46.3) with Heidi MacPherson. His essays have appeared in a wide range of journals, including The Journal of American Studies, The Yearbook of English Studies, Studies in the Novel, Modern Language Review, Canadian Literature, Studies in American Jewish Literature and Philip Roth Studies. Debra Shostak Debra Shostak is Mildred Foss Thompson Professor of English Language and Literature and co-chair of the Department of English at the College of Wooster, Ohio. Co-editor of Philip Roth Studies, she is the author of Philip Roth: Countertexts, Counterlives and editor of Philip Roth: American Pastoral, The Human Stain, The Plot Against America. She has published widely on contemporary American fiction and on film. Copyright © 2017 Purdue University

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1350.056

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilip Roth StudiesSame topicAmerican Jewish Fiction AnalysisFrench-language works237,207