Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nataliya S. Shurinova , PhD, literature teacher at Southern Federal University (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) Abstract . The review explores new books devoted to confessions in literary texts, journalism, and social media. While analyzing literary texts, the image-making decisions of different authors, specific aspects of Internet-communication, and the effects of the rise of subjectivism in mass media, re-searchers present modern confessional practices as an ethically ambivalent socio-cultural phenomenon: McGill R. “The treacherous imagination: intimacy, ethics and autobiographical fiction” (2013); Coward R. “Speaking personally: the rise of subjective and confessional journalism” (2013); Rettberg J. W. “Seeing ourselves through technology. How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves”. Key words : confessional culture, ethics, autobiographical fiction, Internet-communication, confessional journalism, McGill, Rettberg, Coward. DOI 10.23683/2415-8852-2017-2-245-255 Quote : Shurinova, N. S. (2017). New books on сonfessional culture. Practices & Interpretations: A Journal of Philology, Teaching and Cultural Studies . 2 (2), 245‒255.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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".