Marianne Martens. <i>Publishers, Readers, and Digital Engagement</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
sphere of modernity and material culture.In Lundblad's view, the cloth-bound publishers' bindings had a critical function to promote the book and participate in the new "pictorial world of modernity" and connect "people with phenomena that were among the parameters and materials that could be enlisted for the development of the self.Cloth bindings were a part of the material world whose specific forms were used to create social communities" (26).This phenomenon is not unique to the history of the book in Sweden.The changes in publishers' bindings that Lundblad chronicles could easily be mapped onto the appearance of the book in America, England, and continental Europe.She briefly mentions the importance of parallel developments in England and in Europe and includes illustrations for Djurvärlden i ord och bild published in Dutch and Swedish with very similar bindings (figs.81-82, 95).The pictorial covers that emerged toward the end of the nineteenth century had a new function -to entice the reader/consumer, as "this new way of packaging literature took its place among the increasing quantity of consumer products designed at the intersection between mass production and the growing significance of the particular" (166).Lundblad explores this tension between uniqueness and sameness that is part of modern consumer culture, and the "need of the economic system to stimulate consumption" (166).This book will appeal to scholars interested in publishers' bindings, the bookbinding trade in the nineteenth century, and the intersections between the book and material culture.Overall, Lundblad successfully situates her study within the larger context of consumer culture and a few minor inconsistencies related to photomechanical reproduction discussed by Elizabeth Knazook in her review of this book (PBSA 110:2 2016) do not detract from the whole.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.037 |
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".