Introduction: Transatlanticism's influence on \nBritish literary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metaphor of a 'symbiosis' between British and U.S. literature implicit in this journal's title implies that the literatures of both countries are dependent on each other in a mutually enriching relationship.The field of transatlantic literary and cultural studies has provided ample evidence that the national literary traditions of the two countries are permeable.Texts that seem recognizably American or British often become, upon further examination, a product of international cultural forms.A variety of studies have shown that literary cultures have moved both ways across the Atlantic for centuries, in a two-or many-way exchange, from east-to-west, west-to-east, north-to-south, south-to-north, and circum-Atlantic trajectories.Theorists argue that traditions and nations are invented, that national and racial identities on both sides are 'transcontinental co-constructions' (Buell), promoted seriously or facetiously by outsiders and insiders alike.So, operating from the position of high theory, there may seem little need to inquire how transatlanticism has influenced British literary study.Yet outside that sphere, many readers and scholars still rightly view the two national literary traditions as distinct, distinctive and separable. 1For these reasons, it seems worthwhile to articulate how transatlanticism has changed how British literature is written, read, analysed, or curated.This journal being a key exception, transatlanticism as an approach has played a more prominent role in the meta-criticism of American literature than it has in the meta-criticism of British literature.There is no book series for British literature analogous to Routledge's 'Routledge Transnational Perspectives on American Literature'.Edinburgh University Press's website subdivides literary studies into different periods of literature, and American and transatlantic scholarship share the same tab.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".