Editors' Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editors' Note Karen Bourrier, Kristen Guest, Mary Elizabeth Leighton, Daniel Martin, Lisa Surridge, and Vanessa Warne We are delighted to share with our readers this special issue of Victorian Review, which focuses on the works of the Brontë family and is guest edited by Lauren N. Hoffer (University of South Carolina Beaufort) and Elizabeth Meadows (Vanderbilt University). To celebrate the bicentenary of Charlotte Brontë's birth, this issue invites into conversation established and emergent Brontë scholars and presents both traditional and innovative methods for studying the Brontës' oeuvre. This issue marks the end of the joint editorship of Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Surridge, who, in 2006–07, took over the editorial role previously occupied so ably by Susan Hamilton. Under their direction, the journal has reached a vastly wider readership through JSTOR, EBSCO, and Project Muse; it has achieved financial stability; and it has moved in-house with the prestigious Johns Hopkins University Press. Having realized these editorial goals, the team is thrilled to hand over the journal to the expert editorial direction of Christopher Keep, who brings his vast intelligence and critical acuity to the task of taking the journal to a further level of achievement. At this moment of transition, we recognize and celebrate the many past editors and associate editors who have guided Victorian Review, from its beginnings as a regional newsletter to its current form as an international peer-reviewed journal published under the auspices of a university press: Isobel M. Findlay, Christopher Gordon-Craig, Susan Hamilton, Chris Hosgood, Leslie Howsam, Joel H. Kaplan, Adrienne Kertzer, Glennis Stephenson, Sheila Stowell, Douglas Thorpe, C.S. Wiesenthal, and George Wing. Finally, Lisa and Mary Elizabeth want to thank past and present members of the editorial team, with whom it has been an enormous pleasure to work over the years: Karen Bourrier, Alison Chapman, Constance Crompton, Susan Doyle, Rebecca Gagan, Kristen Guest, Ruth Knechtel, Daniel Martin, Judith Mitchell, and Vanessa Warne. They also want to thank the University of Victoria students who cut their copy-editing teeth on the journal and have gone on to enjoy many professional successes, of which the team is deeply proud. Mary Elizabeth and Lisa extend special thanks to current and former students Michael Carelse, Amy Coté, Jenny Duggan, and Kelsey Kilbey. [End Page v] Copyright © 2016 Victorian Studies of Western Canada
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 | 0.011 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.160 | 0.204 |
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".