Book Reviews/Critiques de livres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Christopher Flint, The Appearance of Print in Eighteenth-Century Fiction, Reviewed by Betty A. Schellenberg Christina Lupton, Knowing Books: The Consciousness of Mediation in Eighteenth-Century Britain, Reviewed by Betty A. Schellenberg Isabelle Tremblay, Le Bonheur au féminin: Stratégies narratives des romancières, Reviewed by Katharine Ann Jensen Simon Dickie, Cruelty and Laughter: Forgotten Comic Literature and the Unsentimental Eighteenth Century, Reviewed by Kathleen Lubey ed. Toni Bowers and Tita Chico, Atlantic Worlds in the Long Eighteenth Century: Seduction and Sentiment, Reviewed by Pam Perkins ed. Marie-Françoise Bosquet and Chantale Meure, Le Féminin en Orient et en Occident, du Moyen Âge à nos jours: Mythes et réalités, Reviewed by Carolyn Vellenga Berman éd. Claude La Charité et Roxanne Roy, Femmes, rhétorique et éloquence sous l’Ancien Régime, Critique littéraire par Zeina Hakim Hal Gladfelder, Fanny Hill in Bombay: The Making and Unmaking of John Cleland, Reviewed by Andrea Haslanger
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.038 |
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".