The Janus-Face of Early Modern Literary Studies: Negotiating the Boundaries of Interactivity in an Electronic Journal for the Humanities
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
<p>In its fourth year of publication at the time of writing, <em>Early Modern Literary Studies</em> (<em>EMLS</em>) is, by many measures, accepted as an academic resource by the community it has intended from its outset to serve. Well in excess of half a million <em>EMLS</em> &quot;documents&quot; -- papers, reviews, notes, announcements, and so forth -- have been accessed by a group consisting of some 3,500 regular readers and five times that number in occasional browsers; readers access the journal from its home site, at the University of Alberta, as well as its mirror site at Oxford University and its archive at the National Library of Canada. <em>EMLS</em>, also, is now indexed by the <em>MLA International Bibliography</em>, the Modern Humanities Research Association&#39;s <em>Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature</em>, and a number of other services and databases. But, while <i> EMLS</i> enjoys the widespread recognition that follows from our accessibility, a number of those associated with the journal also find that <i> EMLS</i> now faces several questions, questions associated with introspection and self-evaluation.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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