MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127425387 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2020.0046

Confused and Ill-Arranged: Reading Miscellaneity with Enquire Within

2020· article· en· W3127425387 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Mussell

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiscellanyMeaning (existential)Reading (process)RandomnessIndex (typography)Period (music)HistoryLiteratureLinguisticsPhilosophyClassicsEpistemologyComputer scienceArtStatisticsAestheticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enquire Within was a domestic miscellany published monthly from January to November 1856. Reprinted on completion as a volume, it quickly became one of the best-selling books of the period. It offered a bewildering range of articles, but it was not until the publication of the final number that readers received the index and so were finally able to enquire within. Randomness can be unsettling, yet difference produces meaning. Taking Enquire Within as a case study, this paper examines the role of miscellaneity in the press and considers how the miscellaneous was made meaningful.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.019
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207