MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206206246 · doi:10.3828/bj.2021.15

‘With the Authors Compts’: John Cam Hobhouse’s Uses of ‘Byron’

2021· article· en· W4206206246 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Saunders Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Byron Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarginaliaMemoirPublishingPoliticsArtHistoryClassicsLiteratureLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the intersections of politics, celebrity, authorship, and print culture in John Cam Hobhouse’s publishing career and his associations with Byron. The nature of print authorship and Byron’s ascendant celebrity status forced Hobhouse to consider the dichotomy between individual and author. As Byron’s meteoric literary rise contrasted with the slower and haltingly achieved political trajectory of Hobhouse, the latter was not above using his earlier and ongoing publishing and personal collaborations with Byron as a means to attain political standing. At Chicago’s Newberry Library I discovered a previously undocumented piece of marginalia: an authorial inscription by, or on behalf of, Hobhouse to Viscount Sidmouth in a copy of the first edition of his Journey through Albania , as well as some meaningful marginalia elsewhere in the book. In light of Hobhouse’s important role in instigating the destruction of Byron’s memoirs, this article reconsiders Hobhouse’s ambivalent relationship to the lasting effects of both print authorship and manuscript handwriting.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.027
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Byron JournalSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207