Bibliographic record
Abstract
Authorship in Canada during the nineteenth century was fundamentally transatlantic. Authors who resided in British North America, and later Canada, needed to navigate the system of trans-border publishing if they wished to see much in the way of financial compensation or wide readerships. While the material and legal conditions of trans-border publishing were a hindrance to many authors residing in Canada, some were able to negotiate these conditions to their advantage. One such author is May Agnes Fleming, a New Brunswick-born writer whose literary career was made possible through her pursuit of trans-border — and eventually transatlantic — publishing. In this article, I explore how Fleming’s accrual of mass-market, transatlantic readers and subsequent significant financial success was born by this period’s international copyright agreements. Using Fleming as a case study, this article encourages us to challenge our perceptions of nineteenth-century publishing conditions as exclusively an obstacle to authorship, instead making room for authors who cannily negotiated these conditions in an exceptional, intentional way.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".