MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797264084 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2018.0007

Victorian Periodical Publishing and Ethical Debates: Subjectivity, Evidence, and the Formation of Ethos

2018· article· en· W2797264084 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosSubjectivityPublishingConventionSociologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how periodical publishing shaped discussions of ethics in Victorian England during the 1860s and 1870s. Through a close analysis of the debate about the ethics of belief involving W. K. Clifford and his contemporaries in journals such as the <i>Contemporary Review</i>, the <i>Nineteenth Century</i>, and the <i>Fortnightly Review</i>, this article examines two related ethical concepts: how personal modes of articulating ethical views complicated an individual's understanding of the subjective nature of ethics and how editorial practices, especially the convention of anonymous publication, helped to form the ethos of contributors as public intellectuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207