Recensioner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ulf Olsson om Egil TörnqvistStrindbergs dramatiska bildspråk, Amsterdam Contributions to Scandinavian Studies, Volume 7Amsterdam: Scandinavisch Instituut 2011, 251 s. Astrid Regnell om Anna Westerståhl StenportLocating Strindberg’s Prose: Modernism, Transnationalism, and SettingToronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, 216 s. Rikard Loman om Roland Lysell (red.)Ibsens kvinnor – tolkade av scenens kvinnorLund: ellerströms, 2011, 368 s. Alfred Sjödin om Thomas GötseliusSjälens medium. Skrift och subjekt i Nordeuropa omkring 1500 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska litteratursällskapet, 48)Göteborg: Glänta, 2010, 469 s. (diss. Stockholm, 2010) Katarina Bernhardsson om Petra Broomans (red.)From Darwin to Weil: Women as Transmitters of Ideas (Studies on Cultural Transfer & Transmission, 1)Groningen: Barkhuis, 2009, VIII + 185 s. Anna Nordenstam om Alexandra BorgEn vildmark av sten. Stockholm i litteraturen 1897–1916 Stockholm: Stockholmia förlag, 2011, 372 s. (diss. Uppsala, 2011) Cecilia Alvstad om Claes-Göran Holmberg & Per Erik Ljung (red.)IASS 2010 Proceedings. Föredrag vid den 28:e studiekonferensen i International Association of Scandinavian Studies (IASS) i Lund 3–7 augusti 2010.Lund University Open Access, http://nile.lub.lu.se/ojs/index.php/IASS2010/ Mattias Fyhr om Anna HöglundVampyrer. En kulturkritisk studie av den västerländska vampyrberättelsen från 1700-talet till2000-talet Växjö: Växjö University Press, 2009, 388 s. (diss. Växjö) Per Erik Ljung om Margareta Petersson (red.)Världens litteraturer. En gränsöverskridande historiaLund: Studentlitteratur, 2011, 371 s.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.453 | 0.385 |
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".