Bibliographic record
Abstract
Margo Hendricks begins and concludes her book with a touch of unconventional restraint, defending her critical method and mode of writing as "an unconventional intellectual meandering" (89).This intellectual and critical meandering represents a refreshing dimension of her book.Shedding many footnotes from the first draft of the initial chapter (as she reveals in her preface, which begins with "Dear Reader" [viii]), the heavy scholarly armature, solemnly paying numerous debts to various names and titles, is largely dismantled.Elaborate strategies of justifying and explaining assertions are paired down.In the author's own words, she adopts "the actual mode of writing" she has always "wanted to do, romance fiction" (vii).The result of this decision is a short book written appealingly, cogently, and concisely, where captivating and transparent scholarly prose carries a touch of literary-romance-imagination to it.Nevertheless, such a slick and slim book does not lack anything that a conventionally composed and written book might offer.The absence of bulky explanatory notes and excurses explaining various contexts is not noticeable, as the key arguments are clearly expressed in the main text.Not everything is explained to its end or proven, such as the origin of Aphra Behn's "white-race passing" (91) and "intuitive reading" (91).Yet the experienced scholar's critical speculation is so persuasively developed that the reader does not yearn for more than what "the meandering" of the scholarly mind presents.Everything the reader needs to help them follow the argument is there; there are neither bricks and boulders of evidence and documentation from both primary and secondary sources nor lengthy close-read passages, but a few crucial in-line citations here and there, some longer citations to illustrate a key point, along with a cumulative bibliography that contains almost all of the main titles of key secondary sources that have shaped the critical field of the study of the romance as a literary form.The argument is organized around three interrelated concepts: race, racism, and "racecraft" (xi).The term "racecraft" refers to traces that racism leaves in the places and spaces in which it occurs.In this book, those places encompass the plots, narratives, and protagonists.The term "white passing" is equally
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".