Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of books for blind readers changed, albeit gradually, both the experience of blindness and ideas about blindness. In the decades following James Gall's publication of Britain's first raised‐print book in 1827, many visually disabled Victorians gained access to instruction in finger‐reading skills and they used these skills to read, and also to create, an increasingly varied body of raised‐print material. The development of a print culture for and by blind people transformed the lived experience of visual disability: a growing segment of Britain's blind population were no longer dependent on sighted readers for access to text and institutions that served blind students extended their offerings beyond vocational skills, such as basket making, to include academic study. While the entry into literacy changed the lives of many people with visual disabilities, the proliferation of finger reading also shaped mainstream ideas about visual disability, prompting Victorians to rethink blindness and to reconsider the intellectual potential and sensory experiences of visually disabled people. Major figures in the British history of blind reading include: James Gall, John Alston, and W.H. Levy. Blind authors of note from the period include: Frances Browne, Alice King, James Holman, and W. W. Fenn.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".