<i>"Tous ces livres sont à toi!" De l'oeuvre des bons livres à la Grande Bibliothèque (1844-2005)</i>, Sophie Montreuil et Isabelle Crevier dirs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
finding of a copy of the first edition that had been "married" to an extremely rare dust jacket, and a validation process that represents an important supplement to the book's sketchy publishing history.Abundantly illustrated with images of editions and dust jackets of "true" first editions of Montgomery's work, the catalogue is an extremely useful bibliographical tool for book collectors with a special interest in Montgomery, as well as for scholars studying Canadian literature in general and book history in particular.Although Montgomery's relationship with L.C. Page was fraught with tension, and although his treatment of her and her work appears to have been somewhat high-handed and exploitative, it is undeniable that Page produced gorgeous books.The catalogue provides a good range of images from both the Page and the McClelland and Stewart/Stokes bindings and dust jackets.Anne ofGreen Gables, in the first-edition form that was reprinted for many years, is especially visually attractive and desirable, even without its dust jacket.All of Page's editions of Montgomery's books, designed to conform with the first Anne, have this kind of aesthetic appeal as objects.The McClelland and Stewart/ Frederick Stokes editions, produced after Montgomery shifted publishers in I9I6, are nearly as beautiful as the Page books until the 1930s, when there was a shift to plain cloth bindings and most of the publisher's artistic energy went into the ephemeral dust jackets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.019 |
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".