MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400039187 · doi:10.1215/00182168-11385010

Imprensa, história e literatura: O jornalista-escritor

2024· article· pt· W4400039187 on OpenAlexaff
Hendrik Kraay

Bibliographic record

VenueHispanic American Historical Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural, Media, and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carlos Drummond de Andrade once wondered why newspapers always called him a poet, for he judged his “journalistic output . . . incomparably superior” to his poetry; “in fact, I am a journalist,” he declared in 1984 (vol. 3, pp. 16, 181). While it is well known that Brazilian writers from Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis to Jorge Amado wrote extensively for periodicals (and usually started their writing careers in newspapers and magazines), the relationship between this writing and their literary output remains little studied, despite the former's impressive volume. Rachel de Queiroz produced 1,387 articles for the magazine O Cruzeiro alone between 1938 and 1956 (vol. 2, p. 270). Machado de Assis only published about a third of his 200 short stories in books (vol. 1, p. 204), while only about one-tenth of Drummond's 2,432 crônicas (columns) in the Correio da Manhã subsequently appeared in collections (vol. 3, p. 185).Lúcio Cardoso disdained the 200 or so crime stories that he wrote for A Noite in the early 1950s, but “nothing justifies” such treatment of this “voluminous and important work” (vol. 3, p. 237), and this observation by Valéria Lamego encapsulates the approach of many of the 52 contributors to this collection. Mostly scholars of literature, with only a few historians, they focus on Brazilian and French writers, the latter ranging from Honoré de Balzac to Albert Camus. Chapters on Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, Charles Dickens, José Maria de Eça de Queiroz, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Robert Southey provide a few perspectives from other countries. The editors see a broad shift from the nineteenth century, when writing for newspapers was de rigueur for novelists (and canonical works of literature first appeared in serialized form in the folhetim sections), to the twentieth century, when journalism and literature largely went their separate ways. By the 1950s, those whom Nelson Rodrigues called the “idiots of objectivity” had moved Brazilian journalism from its French origins (prolix and opiniated) to a North American style dominated by conciseness and objectivity (vol. 3, p. 195). Nevertheless, some literati had to write for newspapers to support themselves, as did Clarice Lispector, who in 1952 authored the Entre mulheres (Among women) column for a Rio de Janeiro newspaper, while others were invited to contribute crônicas because of their literary reputations.The 34 chapters on 33 Brazilian writers (Machado de Assis gets 2 chapters) highlight the centrality of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil's literary world. None of the nineteenth-century chapters examine writers in the provinces and their relationship with the local press, but ambitious provincial writers like Antônio Gonçalves Dias or the brothers Artur and Aluísio de Azevedo made careers in the national capital, a pattern that largely endured in the twentieth century. While most contributors focus on canonical authors (and provide important insights into their lesser-known work), the chapter on Alberto Figueiredo Pimentel (1869–1914), considered a “failed” writer (vol. 2, p. 129), shows that much can be learned about the literary world from so-called minor figures.At over 900 pages, with 50 chapters (2 coauthored), this is a collection that readers will sample as they seek what interests them. The too-brief volume introductions, the first by Isabel Lustosa and Rita Olivieri-Godet and the rest by Lustosa alone, provide accurate paragraph-length abstracts to help readers find what interests them. The unfortunate seven-year delay between the conference at Rio de Janeiro's Casa de Rui Barbosa and publication means that this collection arrives somewhat out of date. It reads more like a conference proceeding than an integrated edited book: there is no real cross talk among the chapters, some of which are merely the length of a typical conference paper. The bibliographies (curiously provided for only some of the chapters) reveal only a handful of sources published in 2014 and 2015, and almost nothing more recent. Some of the authors subsequently published books incorporating material presented in their chapters.Unsurprisingly, there is scarcely any mention of the Hemeroteca Digital Brasileira (https://memoria.bn.br/hdb/periodico.aspx), the open-access newspaper database launched by Brazil's national library in 2012, which is currently enabling different approaches to literary history, exemplified by João Roberto Faria's Teatro e escravidão no Brasil (2022). A vast corpus of once virtually inaccessible material is now readily available (and somewhat searchable) and can be considered in the context in which it originally appeared. Lustosa and Olivieri-Godet's collection raises many questions that will, no doubt, be explored more fully as scholars use these new tools to study familiar writers’ not-so-familiar work.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHispanic American Historical ReviewSame topicCultural, Media, and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207