Art History Publishing and Segmentation: Exploratory Observations of an Ecology of Publishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art history publication occupies a complex scholarly geography. Unlike other humanities disciplines, art history publication encompasses a larger landscape, including various publishers and venues available to art historians. Since the book is considered a sine qua non in the humanities, art history as a discipline is open to a more dynamic configuration of publishing opportunities. Depending upon local academic professional requirements, art historians can avail themselves of different outlets—for example, university presses, museums, and university museum publications—for the dissemination of knowledge. This introductory and exploratory discussion centres on the unique environment open to art historians in academia as well as in the museum world. Focused on twentieth-century topics, this discussion offers examples of publishing trends, including what types of publisher are linked to different types of subjects. Further discussion offers an approach that can be applied to any variety of subjects in art history. A significant objective of this article is to situate the larger context into an ecology of publication in art history.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.304 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".