MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243104816 · doi:10.1353/rst.2021.0015

Introduction: Pandemic/Post-Pandemic

2021· article· en· W4243104816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Mazella

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpromptuPandemicMedia studiesHistoryPlague (disease)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Visual artsSociologyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pandemic/Post-Pandemic David Mazella When Laura Rosenthal and I first discussed this project, I didn’t realize how deeply the form and reality of the pandemic would seep into everything we did. For one thing, it was a collective effort undertaken in what everyone has been calling, “COVID time” (to distinguish it from “the before times”). This makes it harder to say precisely when it began. But from my recollection the impetus really came from the March 2020 lockdowns that left many of us isolated and teaching from home. In conversations with my friends in eighteenth-century studies, I learned that many had been revisiting an odd yet familiar text—Defoe’s Journal of the Plague Year. This is a work that is not quite a novel, not quite a history, yet a stubbornly unintegrated compound of the two. Something about this moment had turned this mute geologic specimen into an indispensable book. For those familiar with the Journal, it was difficult to understand or explain the pandemic without retelling its scenes of fear, flight, or horror. Those conversations on social media moved to a Facebook Group and Zoom discussion managed by Celia Barnes and Joe Drury, with many others participating in our impromptu, online scholarly community. From there our discussions quickly entered into my teaching, as they did for many others, and thus many of us made room for this curious little plague book. Then Laura Rosenthal offered us this forum for more extensive reflections, with some room for discussion of how our teaching and classes had been affected by the pandemic. In this way Defoe’s text, because of its unexpected importance in our pandemic pedagogy and curricula, helped shape and participate in what Aleida Assmann has called the “functional memory” of a very specific moment. “From a particular present,” Assmann writes, “a section of the past is illuminated in such a way that it opens a future horizon. Whatever memory is thus constructed is always profiled by the edges of forgetfulness.”1 [End Page 3] In this mode of cultural memory, the forces of “active forgetfulness” and temporal compression ensure that once firm boundaries between past, present, and future begin to weaken and de-couple, while the formerly regular, successive advancement of time stutters and stalls and loops. But if “COVID time” has taught us anything, it is to recognize the strange dilations and uncertainties of felt time, the difficulty of demarcating a specific “period,” or of knowing when we’ve exited a particular moment. By this point we’ve repeatedly confessed to our families and friends how difficult COVID has made marking the passage of time, or sensing one’s location in it. This is almost certainly connected with the pandemic’s disruption of our usual public narratives of uniformly advancing time. Hence, our governments and employers keep repeating that we’re “moving ahead” or “returning to normal” or “putting this behind us,” despite the evidence to the contrary. This special issue was conceived in the Spring of 2020, when the essays were largely proposed; they were first written as we “emerged from the pandemic,” only to find ourselves fully back into it when COVID mutated into new “variants of concern.” That was the moment when newspaper dashboards charted new waves of infection, hospitalization, and death each week, serving as the modern counterpart to the Restoration era’s “Lord Have Mercy” broadsides announcing burial numbers.2 Then the radical pedagogies of Spring 2020 instruction, designed to repair or at least address the global, generational damage wrought by the pandemic, were optimistically revised for “hybrid” and “blended” classrooms the following autumn. Those too, however, collapsed into virtual mode as yet another round of lockdowns sent everyone back to isolation. Then while the essays were being revised and expanded, the cycle of pandemic/post-pandemic/pandemic continued and continues to this moment of writing (January 2022), defying our own attempts to tie it off. And judging by the North American and UK locations of the writers represented here, (Houston, Bristol, College Park, Athens, Kelowna, Davis, Eugene, Jersey City, New York City) most of us are still battling both a third wave of COVID and what the...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestorationSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207