Literaturtheorie und Wissenschaftsbetrieb im britischen Universitätsroman. Campus novels von David Lodge, Malcolm Bradbury und A.S. Byatt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Die Universität als Mikrokosmos der Gesellschaft schien als\n Gestaltungsfeld lange Zeit vor allem anglo-amerikanische Autoren und \nLeser zu begeistern. In jüngster Zeit jedoch ist auch das deutsche \nLesepublikum auf den Universitätsroman aufmerksam geworden und \nverfolgt mit Vergnügen die ironisch bis satirische Darstellung des \nakademischen Balzgehabes, des Liebeslebens und der wissenschaftlichen\n Gefechte rivalisierender Akademiker. Darüber hinaus spielen in den \nRomanen der drei Autoren, die namhafte Literaturwissenschaftler sind,\n wissenschaftliche Methoden und Theorieansätze eine zentrale Rolle. \nDiese Mischung aus 'Wissenschaftsbetrieb' und 'Literaturtheorie' macht\n ihre Romane gerade für den literaturwissenschaftlich vorgebildeten \nLeser zu einer interessanten Lektüre, wie die vorliegende Arbeit zeigt.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".