Bowers, K. and Holland, K., eds. (2021). Dostoevsky at 200: the novel in modernity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The review is devoted to a co- authored monograph on F. Dostoevsky’s poetics published to mark the bicentenary of his birth. It includes chapters on the problems and characteristic features of realism, subjects, and genre and the most representative motifs in the writer’s oeuvre. The reviewer finds that of the most interest are chapters that attempt to study Dostoevsky’s novels in the context of science (the chapters on the polemic with I. Sechenov’s theory and the reception of G. H. Lewes’s ideas), ideology (the chapters on the structure of Dostoevsky’s novels with reference to the imperial ideology of autocracy), or economy (the chapter on female capitalists in Dostoevsky’s works). The methodology of the book will be equally useful to Dostoevsky scholars and researchers specializing in 19th-c. literary realism. The chapters that discuss the motif of a duel and the gothic narrative in Dostoevsky’s books and offer an original interpretation of famous texts unaffected by the historic context and the established scholarly tradition, while providing a fresh perspective, indicate certain limitations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it