MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185879848 · doi:10.82308/11887

Images of success: Cosmopolitan Magazine and the mass marketing of non-fiction, fiction, and poetry through illustrations, 1898-1903

2018· article· en· W3185879848 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hunter Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsPoetryLiteratureArtHistoryAdvertisingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine Cosmopolitan Magazine’s use of illustrations at the turn of the 20th century in order to affect the interpretative experiences of their readers. Previous scholarship has focused on price, distribution and content development of the magazine during this period, but this thesis aims to show how the visual accompaniments in the non-fiction, fiction and poetry helped Cosmo appeal to a larger audience. The first chapter inspects Cosmo’s genre with the largest number of titles, non-fiction. With the introduction of halftone printing technology, Cosmo and other magazines were regularly able to publish photographs in grayscale for their readers. The introduction of photographs enhanced the educational capacities of the magazine, thereby allowing it to attract wider classes of readers. The second chapter shows how Cosmo transferred this illustration strategy to fiction. Editors facilitated, enhanced, and reinforced readers’ experiences of fiction through the placement of images before, beside, or after corresponding passages of text. The interplay between illustrations and text created a more vivid reading experience for Cosmo’s expanding pubic.The third chapter pushes against the conception of James Landers, who argues that the poetry in Cosmo was generally used for filling space after articles and stories. There is some truth to Landers’s claim, but he fails to see that poetry was increasingly illustrated at the turn of the 20th century. This finding demonstrates that, even in this third genre, Cosmo was applying an editorial strategy involving images in order to reach a larger audience, drawing in readers who might be new to the genre and need visual identifiers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207