Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Almost universally, scholarly considerations of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “Winter Dreams” treat the fact that the story was initially published in an illustrated magazine as incidental. By focusing on the three almost simultaneous publications of “Winter Dreams” in illustrated magazines—the American Metropolitan (December 1922), the overlooked first publication in the Canadian MacLean’s (15 November 1922), and the British Royal Magazine (February 1923)—and Arthur William Brown, who provided all six of the North American illustrations, this article begins to offer a corrective to this oversight and argues for reading Fitzgerald’s story not simply as an evolving text but as an evolving cultural artifact framed by the means of cultural production within a specific place and time—that is, the popular magazine world during the golden age of illustration. Far from being dismissive of this context, Fitzgerald was sensitive to the ways that illustrations worked in tandem with his stories to create, in the words of Jerome McGann, “works of composite art,” and early in his career he appreciated and valued illustrators’ contributions, including Brown’s. Using correspondence from authors to illustrators, Brown’s unpublished memoirs, contemporary accounts of illustrators’ processes, and textual and visual details from the three illustrated magazines where “Winter Dreams” appeared, this article argues that our understanding of the story and of Fitzgerald’s career more broadly require consideration of the visual, cultural, and material contexts that surrounded his work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".