Bibliographic record
Abstract
The book has argued – via keywords and close readings – that certain forms of literary representation derive from their author’s concerns about what we now call secularization. It posits that cultural concepts (faith, worlds, nostalgia), forms of mentation (indulgence, figuring), literary forms (novelistic narration, historical fiction), and even fiction and modes of reading themselves result from the conservative orientation of their authors. In so doing, it argues for treating the secular and the postsecular as relevant not just to politics or religion but also to literary forms and innovation, theories of mind, and conceptualizations of temporality and mentation more generally. In fact, a central insight of the book is that the postsecular is motivated not necessarily by political or religious opposition – or even by a renegotiation of the relationship between the religious and the secular – but rather by changes wrought by secularization across the spheres of cultural and social life, and it argues that the literary sphere provided both the site and the methods for that process. This study has also demonstrated that secularization and liberalism are not separate from postsecularization and conservatism – rather, they are interdependent, as this study’s keywords suggest: Faith and indulgence, transformed for a secular system, make possible belief and toleration; imagining worlds and reading literary history are embedded in secular spatiality and temporality, even as they reveal the offenses and limitations wrought by these secular categories; passivity and the revolution/nostalgia dynamic both keep alive and keep in check the liberal fiction of human agency. The conservative and the postsecular are thus constantly in tension with the liberal and secular. This is why it is no coincidence that the concerns of people not well served by liberalism – not just royals but also women and enslaved people – occur repeatedly in this study. This is also why the two characteristics that most distinguish these conservative writers – their opposition to revolution and their innovative literary formations – are connected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.537 | 0.425 |
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".