Bibliographic record
Abstract
There could be no better-qualified a Zola scholar than Robert Lethbridge to take on this major appraisal of Émile Zola’s art criticism as a quintessential component in understanding the many figurations of artists across his fictional works. Zola’s Painters therefore stands on the shoulders of Lethbridge’s definitive contribution to the Classiques Garnier OEuvres complètes on Zola, namely the volume Critique littéraire et artistique, I: Écrits sur l’art (2021). The key difference of emphasis and higher bar for Zola’s Painters, however, is to transport readers already interested in Zola’s novels into the writer’s highly personal ‘gallery’ of major painter contemporaries that his art criticism differently frames from the late 1860s. Zola’s re-evaluations of their art in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War to the end of 1870s then variously reframe ‘his’ painters in the final decades of the century. The pivotal leverage of Lethbridge’s study of Zola’s art-critical œuvre – journalistic and fictional – lies in its personal basis that also challenges art historical understandings of the period informed by key circles, movements and genres such as la nouvelle peinture, the Barbizon School and the Impressionists.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.233 | 0.120 |
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".