<scp>Jon Mee</scp> and <scp>Matthew Sangster</scp> (eds). <i>Institutions of Literature, 1700–1900: The Development of Literary Culture and Production</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Institutions of Literature updates historical accounts of institutions (societies, libraries, and museums) by tracing their influence on literary culture and production before and after the Romantic period. In their introduction, Mee and Sangster address how literary criticism too often conflates small, ramshackle institutions with leviathan-like bureaucracies. For instance, early eighteenth-century institutions like the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society, an antiquarian foundation where members first met at a local coffee house, are hardly the kind of Foucauldian monster that comes to mind for suspicious literary scholars. Yet, the volume wrestles with a simple fact: literary studies are uncomfortable with institutional authority. For good reason, the editors see it as no coincidence that Institutions of Literature ‘appears at a time when academics are feeling increasingly alienated by institutional forms’ (3). However, writers and academics remain active participants in the same institutional structures they resist. This conflict dates back to early institutions. As Anne H. Stevens’s chapter on circulating libraries argues, ‘Institutions shape the long history of the novel’, a genre first condemned as immoral and harmful to women readers (127). Furthermore, Romantic notions of literary freedom and authenticity beyond institutional confines seem in tension with the lives of writers like Coleridge and Hazlitt who were star lecturers at institutions throughout the 1810s (19). Mee and Sangster’s study scrutinises webs of literary production and dissemination—in Britain, the British Empire, and elsewhere in Europe—that make institutions and literature inextricably linked.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 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".