Twenty-First Century Book Studies: The State of the Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 25th annual Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing (SHARP)\nconference in 2017, held at the University of Victoria, Canada, Stevie Marsden and Rachel\nNoorda moderated a workshop on the topic of “The Twenty-First Century Book.” Six scholars\n(Beth Driscoll, Per Henningsgaard, Simone Murray, DeNel Rehberg-Sedo, Simon Rowberry and\nClaire Squires), whose research is predominantly positioned within the twenty-first century, were\ninvited to discuss the challenges and opportunities for study of the twenty-first century book.\nThe 2017 SHARP conference, “Technologies of the Book”, seemed the perfect setting to hold\nthis workshop. Not only did the conference theme complement many of the twenty-first century\nbook subjects discussed during the workshop, but as it was SHARP’s 25th annual conference, it\nwas imbued with reflection on the society’s past twenty-five years and the community of\nscholars it has developed. Indeed, SHARP membership data indicates that many of its members\nare interested in twenty-first century research and scholarship: thirty-four percent of SHARP\nmembers who indicated a historical period in their membership data listed the twenty-first \ncentury as a period of interest, either as an exclusive historical period of study or alongside other\nperiods, particularly the twentieth century. Thus twenty-first century book research is a\nsignificant area of SHARP research and a period of study that interests a growing group of\nSHARP members. However, the discussion of twenty-first century book research held during the\nworkshop indicated that there was a need for a fuller examination of the state of the discipline of\nthe twenty-first century book. Accordingly, this article will explore and examine current trends,\nthemes and critical discourse related to the twenty-first century of the book in order to explicate\nthe current state of twenty-first century book studies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".