Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gothenburg Book Fair is one of the most important cultural events in Scandinavia today. Since 1985, it has grown into a meeting place for book lovers, librarians, and people in the book industry. However, it has also been surrounded by scandals and controversies. Inspired by Brian Moeran’s notion of the book fair as “a tournament of values,” and Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s constructivist approach to value, this article analyzes the Gothenburg Book Fair as an arena for negotiating value. The article first discusses how the value of the Gothenburg Book Fair has been under constant negotiation since its inception, and then examines how different actors participated in consolidating the fair’s value and function at the beginning of the 2010s. Finally, it considers the intensive debate about the Gothenburg Book Fair in 2016–2017, due to the decision to allow the extreme-right newspaperNya Tiderto have a stand in the exhibition halls, which above all resulted in a renegotiation of the book fair’s social and economic value. Through this diachronic and historical perspective, the article shows how a more pronounced theoretical value perspective in relation to book fairs and literary festivals provides new knowledge about these types of literary events and their role in literary culture as a whole.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".