Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been recognised that creativity is a vital part of literature's contribution to the interdisciplinary concerns of this journal. But while creativity is readily apparent in a host of writers from Auden to Zamyatin, it can be harder to recognise the imaginative contribution of the literary critic. Although departments of literary studies are forever redefining their raison d'être and celebrating the intellectual diversity of faculty members, critical essays rarely merit description as creative acts and are even more rarely defined by their imaginative intensity. One exception to this rule is the work of John Schad, and Literature and Theology are delighted that he accepted an invitation to give the 2011 Annual Lecture, republished as the first article of this issue. From the very start, Schad's work on literature and theology has been marked by playfulness and an attention to the creative possibilities of the literary form. All critics aspire to keeping the texts they analyse open to new readings, but ensuring that this aspiration does not lead to asphyxiation or imaginative expiration can be a challenge. In this respect, as in so many others, Schad's work has been a source of renewal, and his commitment to exploring new interpretative possibilities is evident in both the form and content of his writing. Early books, such as The Reader in the Dickensian Mirrors (1992), are methodologically innovative in their refusal to operate solely within an established theoretical paradigm. Schad's formal innovations took another step forward in 2004, however, with the publication of Queer Fish: Christian Unreason from Darwin to Derrida. As well as bringing to life a marginal and subversive Christian tradition, the book utilised extended sequences of associative thought to offer an alternative style of critical writing. As I commented when reviewing the work for Christianity and Literature, the book was ‘one of the most exciting and imaginative contributions to the field of religion and literature for some time’. But Schad's work took a stranger and still more exciting turn in 2007 with the publication of Someone Called Derrida: An Oxford Mystery. This is one of the best ‘critical’ works that I have read. I use the word ‘critical’ with caution, for it is a book that defies generic categorisation. It is, at one and the same time, an astute close reading of Derrida's ‘Envois', a moving memoir of John Schad's father, an investigation into Oxford wartime secrets, a mystery story, an intellectual history and a piece of creative writing. Schad's work has continued to push the boundaries of criticism since then: his series Critical Inventions, published by Sussex Academic Press, is outstanding, and his wonderful forthcoming book The Late Walter Benjamin (Continuum, 2012) is worth reading at the earliest opportunity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.541 | 0.300 |
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".