MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981373697 · doi:10.33137/pbsc.v39i2.18236

<i>Publisher to the Decadents: Leonard Smithers in the Careers of Aubrey Beardsley, Wilde, Dowson</i>, by James G. Nelson

2001· article· en· W2981373697 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kevin O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers of The Bibliographical Society of Canada · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt historyArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

been fruitfully informed by recent theoretical and sociological accounts of the eighteenth-century reader, as well as by other studies of individual readers.While I have registered some minor disappointments with these essays, they result from the inevitable limitations of the discrete essay format and of the book's brevity.This limitation is in itself valuable, in that it points to the need for scholarship focussed squarely on the print culture of eighteenth-century Scotland, as opposed to studies such as Robert Crawford's Devolving English Literature and Leith Davis's Acts of Union: Scotland and the Literary Negotiation of the British Nation, z7o7-183o, which have made us aware of Scottish contributions to the formation of British cultural institutions.It is to be hoped that Volume II: z7o7-18oo of the projected four-volume History of the Book in Scotla~nd will further address this gap.In the interim, this handsome, well-written collection and catalogue is admirable in what it does accomplish, in putting both the Scottish culture of the book, and Canadian contributions to the study of that culture, into the hands of readers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers of The Bibliographical Society of CanadaSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207