Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Young England: Part One” pursues central questions for juvenilia studies: how did the turn-of-the-century juvenile tradition influence succeeding generations of Victorian writers, and what new questions does scholarly understanding of juvenile writing in Britain allow literary critics to ask now? The Romantic-era juvenile tradition gets reconstituted through its influence on the 1840s Tory splinter movement, Young England. I argue that this contradictory, conservative group of titled young writers paradoxically reveals how the marginalized juvenile tradition calls its writers into being—and asks us to revise our ideas of literary traditions and of history in general. The young Romantics Byron and Shelley symbolized youthful writing to Young Englanders, but so did another lesser-known juvenile writer, Percy Smythe, Sixth Lord Strangford. That Strangford was father to a prominent Young Englander: George Smythe, later Seventh Lord Strangford. In recovering both Strangfords’ literary juvenilia, Part One considers the rethinking of genealogy and succession within writing by young authors—arguing it underlies Young England as youth movement, especially its sense of history as ultimately inaccessible but vital nonetheless in its construction. Part Two (JJS 3.2, June 2020) will look more closely at how Young England’s shaping fantasy of history depends on youth. It focuses on the self-fashioning within its contradictions of one-time juvenile writer and Young England’s mentor, Benjamin Disraeli (later Prime Minister and Earl of Beaconsfield)—contradictions employing signifiers of youth that were generative of his virtuoso performance as writer, celebrity, and statesman.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.036 |
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".