Between Impressions and Data: Negotiating Literary Value at the Humanities/Social Sciences Frontier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
iterary studies' chief intellectual challenge at the present moment is that its object of study, governing theories and analytic methods are premised on the printed book, yet the discipline manifestly exists in a world where the publishing, promotion, discussion, reviewing and documenting of reading occur via digital platforms.In short, under-acknowledged printculture assumptions underpin literary studies' academic project.In the late twentieth-century context, where emergent digital technologies were frequently pitted against literary (read: print) culture, it was difficult to remain open to rethinking literary studies' operating norms without risking total capitulation.But now that existential threats to the book have subsided, while the pace of digital technology continues to accelerate, it is both timely and urgent to consider how literary studies can help the public make sense of literary culture in the digital era, and in doing so ensure its continued existence as a scholarly endeavour.With the humanities generally, and literary studies specifically, under constant political, economic and often institutional threat, we need to maximise every opportunity to demonstrate the discipline's socio-cultural relevance in the contemporary world.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".