Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article (part 2 of two) surveys Dickens scholarship and adjacent work with a special emphasis on The Dickensian and Dickens Studies Annual. The author’s initial approach was inspired by the alternating micro- and macro-method of Robert Douglas-Fairhurst’s Turning Point 1851. Part 2 of article identifies these key trends: (1) an interest in how nineteenth-century psychology, including trauma, affected Dickens work; (2) film, book, and stage adaptations and adaptation studies; (2) approaches to The Mystery of Edwin Drood; (3) interest in objects, things, places and spaces, including how places, objects and things can hold meaning; (4) intense, narrowly focused scholarship on topics like windows, paperweights, illustrations and correspondence, and again, “things” (5) controversies surrounding Dickens’s biography, especially Ellen Ternan (6) Dickens’s relationship with other authors, including William Makepeace Thackeray, William Harrison Ainsworth, George Eliot, and George Henry Lewes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".