Bibliographic record
Abstract
Christiane Schwab, “Sailors, Book Hawkers, and Bricklayer’s Laborers: Social Types and the Production of Social Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century Periodical Literature” (pp. 403–426) This essay explores how the modern obsession with systems of human classification manifested and spread in an increasing market of periodical literature in nineteenth-century Europe. It examines the various epistemic and rhetorical techniques of social typification developed in “sociographic” sketch writing, focusing on examples from the multiauthored serials Heads of the People; or, Portraits of the English (1840–41) and Les Français peints par eux-mêmes (1840–42). The essay claims that, by combining depictions of social types with political commentary, economic and sociohistorical considerations, and satirical allusions, the epistemic-narrative strategy of typecasting met the educational and entertainment needs of a growing reading public. It furthermore evaluates the works of investigative reporters such as Henry Mayhew and Angus Bethune Reach as interfaces between journalistic-literary and “scientific” ways of social study. The essay aims to stimulate an understanding of literary typecasting as a sort of “popular sociology” by interpreting the popularity of typecasting in the context of an increased interest in social structures on the verge of modernity, expressed in prose and arts as well as social thought.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".