Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is quite the promise of the proto-1890s dandy in James Tissot’s portrait of a reclining Colonel Frederick Burnaby (1842–85) of 1870, the particular qualities of the 1890s make it a very much self-contained decade and one that is often viewed as anomalous to the rigidly conformist other decades of Queen Victoria’s long reign. It introduced personal freedoms that defied strict convention and in this sense is anticipatory of those decades of comparable freedom and self-expression: the 1920s, then the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s. Crucial to the 1890s is a discovery of realism in literature and painting and therefore a decisive break with mid-Victorian sentimentality and the withdrawing-room potboiler. A decade evoked by the colours black and mauve, the aim of this article is to understand how rarefied dandies and aesthetes lived their lives during the 1890s in terms of architecture they inhabited; decoration within; how they dressed, ate and perfumed set to a backdrop of gas-lit nightlife, sumptuous Proustian interiors, evening dress canes, smoking jackets and gin palaces. The dandy by his very nature would be drawn to the most refined luxuries of the period, procuring or deriving the very best from the above lifestyle categories. Although the antecedents of today’s luxury consumption can be found in eighteenth-century retail, specialism in the above areas would have been much more developed by the 1890s with highly specialized retail outlets and also the immediate model for twentieth-century mega-hotels (as in by 1897 The Waldorf-Astoria, New York had 1000 rooms, large by even today’s standards). The dandy probably never had it so good post-the 1890s. This was their decade.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".