Kirsten MacLeod, American Little Magazines of the Fin de Siècle: Art, Protest, and Cultural Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and Cultural Transformation, Kirsten Macleod offers a compelling cultural history and posits these publications as an important force-field in a context where shortly after modernist magazines appeared.MacLeod calls for the expansion of the field of modern periodical studies so as to include the fin-de-siècle periodicals within its scope, despite that fact that their "democratic character' and their "highly personalized nature" have rendered [them] largely irrelevant to trends in modernist studies."(8).Although these publications do not anticipate the tenor of modernist magazines in terms of content, readership and sustained embrace of avant-gardism, the author argues that they form an important backdrop for magazine modernism, on the level of how they were geared towards cultural and social change.Poised between critical analysis and comprehensiveness, MacLeod's impressively documented study of a large number of magazines that were selected out of a dauntingly large corpus more than lives up to its promise: proposing a "rather capacious and, in some respects, counterintuitive definition of the little magazine," (12) the author widens our sense of "little magazineness" (17) through an exploration of a hitherto under-researched field.MacLeod's approach is aligned with the "expansive tendency" of "all period-centered areas of literary scholarship," across "temporal, spatial, and vertical directions," as Douglas Mao and Rebecca Walkowitz had put it more than a decade ago (737). 1 Most notably, MacLeod's timely study takes up the Kirsten MacLeod, American Little Magazines of the Fin de Siècle: Art, Protest...
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.012 |
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".