MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395040308 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2023.a925213

Staying the Course

2023· article· en· W4395040308 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rohan Maitzen

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)HistoryAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Staying the Course Rohan Maitzen (bio) It may seem perverse for my contribution to a forum focused on change and novelty to emphasize continuity instead. Yet, looking back over the nearly three decades I have been teaching Victorian literature—reflections that have perhaps unusual specificity because for around half of that time, I have maintained a blog series1 about what goes on in my classroom—what stands out to me is that (to paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel), after changes upon changes, my courses are more or less the same. To be sure, "more or less" is doing a lot of work here. In some respects, my long experience of teaching is actually one of near constant modifications motivated by factors both external and intrinsic to my individual classroom. We are incessantly revising our departmental curriculum, with outcomes that affect both which particular courses I offer and the relationship of those courses to the rest of our program. Details of the courses themselves are affected by developments in English broadly speaking, in Victorian studies specifically, and in my own research: over the years, different texts, topics, and critical approaches have become more or less interesting or urgent. Students' needs and expectations evolve; so too, for better and for worse, does technology. For all of these reasons, I am constantly playing with my reading lists and varying my assignment sequences, which over the years have included reading journals and class blogs, letter exchanges and collaborative wikis, annotation exercises and research papers, group presentations and Pecha Kuchas, along with many variations on more traditional essay assignments. And yet the real work of my classroom, as I see it, has not changed much at all since 1995, although I have become more purposeful in planning for it and (thanks in large part to my blog series) more articulate in explaining and [End Page 29] advocating for it. At the heart of my teaching is the conviction that, as Aurora Leigh puts it, "the world of books is still the world" (Barrett Browning 26). This does not mean that my highest priority is engaging with Victorian novels in the spirit of what is sometimes called "presentism," tying their value—and thus the value of our attention to them—to their relevance to problems in our current world.2 It means that I focus on them as modelling ways of being in the world, and on the significance, in that respect, of their form—of what the contemporary novelist Ali Smith calls "the shape the telling takes" (21). To serve these goals, I need and want our attention to be primarily on the page. Indeed, my main goal for all of my courses, not just those on Victorian literature, is (as I wrote on my blog in 2018) "to engage and train [students] as readers": the vast majority of the students I teach at every level (now, really, including graduate students) are not going to enter the academy as professional literary scholars—but they are (I very much hope!) going to keep reading. My goal is to foster both the skills and the commitment they need to carry on reading as well (as intently, curiously, and critically) as we ask them to in our classes. ("Readers and/or Scholars") For me, this attention to reading as a portable, practical, and ethically significant skill is an extension of the underlying premise of most of the nineteenth-century novels I teach, which were never intended to be treated as static aesthetic artifacts but were meant rather as provocations to both thought and action—or, keeping in mind my interest in form, to thought as action. "All of our books," I wrote in a 2008 blog post summarizing my closing peroration for my nineteenth-century fiction class, in their own ways ask us to get worked up about "the way we live now"—using fictional techniques (intrusive narration, direct address, thematization, multiple narrators, sensationalism, comedy, pathos) and artistry to engage us. . . . A further, and related, feature of these novels, and one that seems to me of increasing importance, is the imperative they communicate that we, as readers, have a lot of responsibilities: to read well, to judge...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3520.188

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicThomas Hardy Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207