Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Responding to Gissing on 1 July 1886, Hardy expressed the fear that the other ‘s ‘keen eye for good work ‘ would be disappointed by The Woodlanders, then a quarter of the way through its serialization in Macmillan ‘s Magazine: ‘It would have made a beautiful story if I could have carried out my idea of it: but somehow I come so far short of my intention that I fear it will be quite otherwise—unless I pick up towards the end. ‘ Both the note of self-deprecation and the particular terms in which it is sounded are familiar enough in Hardy ‘s comments on his work, but he does seem to have experienced real difficulty in writing The Woodlanders, and especially in completing it to schedule. He started work on the novel late and then broke off to make the final revisions to The Mayor of Casterbridge; he was always under the pressure of completing each instalment in time for advance proofs to be sent across the Atlantic for simultaneous publication in Harper ‘s Bazar; and, by no means least, he had not finally learned the impracticability of his attempting serious work in London: ‘I have some writing to do whilst in town ‘, he told Stevenson on 7 June, ‘& can ‘t touch it: it is becoming quite a nightmare. ‘¹
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".