MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413992359 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2025.a969183

“A Certain Amount of Scientific Education”: Science, Sensation, and the Everyman Narrator in the Serialised War of the Worlds (1897)

2025· article· en· W4413992359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adele Guyton

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensationAestheticsLiteraturePsychologyHistoryPhilosophyEpistemologyArtCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This essay compares the 1897 serialised version of The War of the Worlds in Pearson’s Magazine to Wells’s 1898 and 1924 revisions of the text for book publication. I argue that the serialised narrator is fallible, embodied in his responses, relatively nonscientific in his language, and thus far more an everyman than the later texts’ unreliable, clinical, and intellectually dishonest narrator. By highlighting the importance of layperson experiences, Pearson’s serialization offers working- and middle-class readers more empowering affects with which to approach science and raises questions for scholars about how authors shaped their texts for periodicals’ and books’ differing audiences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicLiterature, Film, and Journalism AnalysisFrench-language works237,207