Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judging by the more than ten companions and guides to the interdisciplinary field of book history published in the last two decades, the death of the book does not seem assured. This article explores recent book historical scholarship that takes energy from the “new” formalisms of the twenty-first century and attends to the range of forms (literary, material, institutional) constitutive of the “book.” In a field reckoning with its silences on Black and Indigenous books, and with its marginalization of books authored and printed by women, definitions of the book are becoming more capacious and nuanced. In the last decade, it is possible to detect two additional “turns” in book history: the first, toward environmental or ecological histories of the book and, the second, toward craft and practice. Experiential approaches to teaching book history are likewise gaining steam as new letterpress studios and book labs are established in college and university settings. Engaging students in critical making and processual research, such book labs allow for embodied learning about the labour and craft of hand-press book production.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".