Роль літературних канонів у процесі формування національної ідентичності: історична перспектива
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Література: 1. Altiery, Charles. The Idea and Ideal of a Literary Canon // Critical Inquiry, Vol. 10, No. 1, Canons (Sep., 1983). - pp. 37- 60. 2. Bérubé, Michael. The Employment of English: Theory, Jobs, and the Future of Literary Studies. – N.Y.& L.: New York UP, 1998. – 270 p. 3. Bloom, Harold. The Western Canon. The Books and Schools of the Ages, N.Y.- San Diego – L.: Harcourt, Brace, & Co., 1994. – 578 p. 4. Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1952. – 718 p. 5. Doren, Carl Van. Toward A New Canon // The Nation 134.3484 (13 Apr. 1932). pp. 429-430. Document URL: \n http://go.galegroup.com/ps/l.do?id=GALE%7CH1420025423&v=2.1&u=li ncclin_iscc&it=r&p=LitRG&sw=w 6. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. – Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. – 240 p. 7. Gorak, Jan. The Making of the Modern Canon: Genesis and Crisis of a Literary Idea. – L.; Atlantic Highlands, N.J., Athlone Press, 1991. – 324 p. 8. Guillory, John. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. – Chicago; L., Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994. – 408 p. 9. Kermode, Frank. Institutional Control of Interpretation // Salmagundi 43 (Winter 1979). – pp. 72 - 86. 10. Makaryk, Irena (gen.ed.), Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory. Approaches, Scholars, Terms. – Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994. – 656 p. 11. Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory. – Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1988. – 229 p.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".