MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Little exiled magazines

2016· book-chapter· en· W4240106871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Bulson

Bibliographic record

VenueColumbia University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicItalian Fascism and Post-war Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanPoliticsNazismHistoryCommunismSecessionQuarter (Canadian coin)Media studiesArt historyClassicsArtPolitical scienceLawSociologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter Four looks at some of the most prominent “exile” magazines produced by British and American editors who fled to countries across Europe to combat this increased Anglo-American provincialism. Broom (1921-24), Secession (1922-24), Gargoyle (1921-22), The Exile (1927-28), Tambour (1929-30), This Quarter (1925), the transatlantic review (1924-25), and transition (1927-38) represent a collective attempt to establish an international system for production and distribution that worked in reverse. Instead of producing magazines in England or America, they published them in European cities and had them transported back across the Atlantic Ocean and the English Channel. This story about the “little exiled magazine,” as Malcolm Cowley called it, doesn’t end here. In the 1930s and 1940s, it became a lifeline for so many of the critics and writers, who fled the Fascists and Nazis, and came to include anti-fascist communist magazines such as Das Wort (a German language magazine printed in Russia) and Surrealist magazines such as VVV and Dyn (one printed in New York City, the other in Mexico City). Taking the long view of the little magazine’s exilic history and geography allows us to foreground a political reality that is so often ignored or forgotten.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.016

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueColumbia University Press eBooksSame topicItalian Fascism and Post-war SocietyFrench-language works237,207