Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, the Modern Language Association (MLA) circulated a draft proposal to restructure existing "divisions" and "discussion groups," in an effort to respond to intellectual shifts in the new millennium.The MLA working group's plans for revising the divisional structure included the consolidation of traditional periods, and the addition of new subfields in emerging areas.Among the proposed changes was the amalgamation of the divisions on "Restoration and Early-Eighteenth-Century English Literature" and "Late-Eighteenth-Century English Literature" into a single forum on the "Long Eighteenth Century."Opposition to the move from the eighteenth-century scholarly community was swift and unanimous.When MLA invited comments on the initiative as part of their review process, more than eighty members-graduate students, early career and senior scholars, including four past presidents of ASECS, and several current and former board members of this journal-weighed in, urging the organization not to act on the proposed merger because such rearrangement would, if implemented, not only reduce the number of guaranteed panels at the annual convention, but also excise the Restoration as a literary historical category altogether.While acknowledging the limitations inherent to periodization and noting that divides between periods seldom correspond to divides between centuries, the concerned members nevertheless made reasoned, eloquent, and conscientious appeals for preserving the Restoration as a separate entity, owing to its rich literary output and its importance for understanding the broader contours of the field. 1 In response to this groundswell of opposition, MLA maintained the status quo and retained the two-forum structure.
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 | 0.028 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".