“Keep out/Keep out/Your snooting snout…”: The Irresistible Journals of Elizabeth Smart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[para. 1]: "Bill said write all the time keep a diary-so here it is" (5). So here it is that on March 6, 1933, the twenty year old Elizabeth Smart introduced her diary to an as yet unidentified audience. Years later, on March 1, 1940, she revealed just what this diary had come to represent: "But this my book I carry everywhere, and its blank unwritten pages and shabby cover-its menial use for dancing notes, addresses, and accounts deglamourize it. I must not forget IT is my heavenly key-my work my purpose" (239-40). Elizabeth Smart's "purpose"-her diary was one that sustained her throughout her adult life. In fact, it was so clearly her "work" that towards the end of her life she set about having these extensive volumes published. In 1982, Smart was working as writer-in-residence at the University of Alberta. Smart's colleague, Alice Van Wart, explains: "While visiting her in her office one day, I noticed on her desk formidable piles of paper, which she informed me were the transcripts of her journals" (Necessary intro.). After Van Wart expressed an interest in these papers, Smart phoned her a few months later and asked her to edit them. She accepted the proposal, and in 1986 Necessary Secrets: The Journals of Elizabeth Smart appeared. Though, unfortunately, Smart died while the work was in production, Rosemary Sullivan confirms in her biography, By Heart, that Smart had "proofread the manuscript" and "was pleased with it" (378)."
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".