Matthew G. Kirschenbaum. <i>Track Changes: A Literary History of Word Processing</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada 55/1 136 that the book has no rarity value and that sentiment repaired comes at a steep price" (112).She describes the process of washing the sheets in clumps, treating the coloured pages separately, repairing damaged pages, guarding the signatures, tipping in single pages, resewing, rounding and backing, and reattaching the boards and endpapers.For a novice bookbinder, this may provide an order of working, but careful cost considerations are required before such work is commenced.Is the customer willing to spend $500 or more to restore the book or will less intervention be sufficient?With the subtitle, Confessions of a Bookbinder, the reader anticipates that Kamph will acknowledge sins committed against established bookbinding techniques and she confesses that she is "continuously rewriting the rules" (1).Conservators and bookbinders may take issue with her use of PVA for repairs and certain binding operations as she does not state whether she uses reversible PVA.Yet there are other tips and tricks that may be useful to readers such as pinning the headband core in place before sewing and scanning and printing marbled or patterned papers to create replicas.As many bookbinders work alone in small studios, accessing solutions to technical problems can be challenging (although listservs such as BOOK_ARTS-L provide such a forum).Kamph's techniques are not radically different from improvisations that all bookbinders are required to make at the bench.In discussing this volume with Don Taylor, a Toronto bookbinder, he concurred that the volume offers useful information and several techniques that he would be willing to try.Overall, this book provides rich insight into Kamph's philosophy and process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.009 |
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".