Insights into the Legacy of Bloomsbury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue of the Cahiers victoriens et édouardiens is dedicated to the Bloomsbury group, which is often seen as being at the heart of the novelty and diversity of British modernism. The aim of the issue is to better assess the role played by the Bloomsbury group within British modernism and to provide some further, if necessarily modest, insights into the Bloomsbury legacy. The focus here is both on the response of the Bloomsbury group to the various art forms that developed at the beginning of the twentieth century and on the aesthetic theories they elaborated in relation to literature, painting, photography, dance or cinema. The choice of articles collected here bring together French, American and Canadian scholars, confronting their different perceptions of the group’s achievements and approaches to their heritage. Ce numéro des Cahiers victoriens et édouardiens est consacré au groupe de Bloomsbury, souvent considéré comme étant au cœur de la nouveauté et de la diversité du modernisme britannique. L'objectif de ce numéro est de mieux évaluer le rôle joué par le groupe de Bloomsbury au sein du modernisme britannique et d'apporter un éclairage complémentaire, même s'il est nécessairement modeste, sur l'héritage de Bloomsbury. L'accent est mis à la fois sur les réactions du groupe de Bloomsbury aux diverses formes d'art qui se sont développées au début du XXème siècle et sur les théories esthétiques qu'il a élaborées sur la littérature, la peinture, la photographie, la danse ou le cinéma. Le choix d’articles rassemblés ici réunit des chercheurs français, américains et canadiens, et confronte leur perception différente des réalisations du groupe et de son héritage.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".