Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late 1804, William Blackwood established a small publishing and bookselling firm in Edinburgh. Over the next 175 years, William Blackwood & Sons became one of the leading publishers in Britain, enjoying both local and international success. Early on it championed the works of Scottish writers, and later gained acclaim as the publisher of G.W. Steevens, George Eliot, Charles Whibley, and Joseph Conrad. Its political influence was also widespread; in 1817 it founded the monthly Blackwood’s Magazine, which featured literary, critical, political, and journalistic commentary and analysis, and was a powerful force in British conservative politics. Two hundred years after the founding of this significant influence on British literary, political, and social history, this collection of essays reappraises the place of the Blackwood firm and its magazine in literary and print culture history. Editor David Finkelstein brings together an array of eminent scholars and critics from the US, Canada, Scandinavia, and the UK to examine Blackwoods from a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives. The resulting collection covers an impressive range of subject areas, including Romantic and Victorian literature, print culture, media history, and New Journalism. Awarded the 2007 Robert Colby Scholarly Book Prize by the Research Society for Victorian Periodicals
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".