MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008656878

Clubs for the unclubbable: Humor and literary sociability

2016· article· en· W7008656878 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubNewspaperReading (process)Space (punctuation)InstitutionQuality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What’s a club for the unclubbable? A book or magazine. This notion underlies a strain of humor about clubs in the aftermath of Britain’s 1870 Education Act. Beneath the jokes about men gathering to hide behind their newspapers lies an earnest aspiration to create a print equivalent of a club ethos: an institution that cultivates fellow feeling. Humorists such as Jerome K. Jerome, J. M. Barrie, Israel Zangwill and G. K. Chesterton jokingly redefined the club for new classes of readers, who tended to be “unclubbable” not because of the quality of their sociability, but for reasons of class, gender, or other social factors. The imagined space of print culture created a club for these “unclubbables,” one with looser rules of affiliation. Thinking of print culture as a club sheds light on literary sociability, specifically the ways in which the simple act of reading the same book can connect us.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.163 · 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