Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strange Power of Speech: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Literary Possession (Susan Eilenberg) (Reviewed by Margaret Russett, University of Southern California)William Wordsworth: Intensity and Achievement (Thomas McFarland) (Reviewed by Margaret Russett, University of Southern California)Tennyson and the Text (Gerhard Joseph) (Reviewed by W. David Shaw, Victoria College, University of Toronto)The Critics Bear It Away: American Fiction and the Academy (Frederick Crews) (Reviewed by Peter Erickson, Clark Art Institutute)The Dialectics of Our America: Genealogy, Cultural Critique, and Literary History (José David Saldívar) (Reviewed by Leslie Bary, Louisiana State University)A History of Russian Literature (Victor Terras) (Reviewed by Irina Reyfman, Columbia University)Recreating the World/Word: Mythic Mode as Symbolic Discourse (Lynda D. McNeil) (Reviewed by Christopher Tidwell, University of South Florida)
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.513 | 0.474 |
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".