Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the economy of Romantic-period paper circa 1790s to 1810s. The material history of paper preoccupied writers in the period, not only because of its volatile role in mediation. I discuss articles from British and Caribbean newspapers, economic histories of the paper trade, and essays on papermaking by Charlotte Smith and Anna Barbauld. These contemporary sources demonstrate that, in times of scarcity consequent on war and economic isolation, British writers used figural discourses of whiteness to promote paper conservation. At the same time, these writers glanced uneasily at the complexly racialized, mobile history of paper, including the participation of Jews in rag gathering and the use of cast-off clothes from enslaved people of color, sailors, and condemned prisoners in the making of paper furnish. Paper’s whiteness suffered continual threat from the traces of this history (materialized by writing and print) and from the instability of its figurations. The precarious whiteness of paper and its dependency on rags link the paper trade practically and figurally with the Atlantic slave economy. I argue that Jane Austen’s novels metonymically address the racialized economy of paper, querying the dependency of the industry—and Romantic literate culture—on racialized networks of injustice.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".