Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a frequently discussed passage from his 1884 essay ‘The Art of Fiction’, Henry James recalls the story of how a female author (believed to be Anne Thackeray Ritchie) gathered material for a tale from a passing glimpse, through ‘an open door’, of some ‘young Protestants … seated at table round a finished meal’: ‘The glimpse made a picture; it lasted only a moment, but that moment was experience. She had got her impression, and she evolved her type’. Ritchie’s received impression proves crucial to the success of ‘the impression she had managed to give’ of such youth in the resultant story. This familiar episode forms a touchstone for John Scholar’s new book on Henry James’s ‘art of impressions’—it encapsulates James’s interest in impressions as imaginative events of extraordinary sensation and active embroidering, moving fluidly ‘between the sensible and the moral’ (p. 54). Scholar’s work, in its most impressive sequences, paints a compelling picture of James’s investment in the impression as a term with a deep genealogy and complicated resonance, driving his fictional explorations of empiricism, aesthetics, and memory.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".