Bibliographic record
Abstract
First paragraph: When the Cambridge history of the book in Britain project was first conceived in the early 1990s it was acknowledged by D.F. McKenzie that, compared to the first six projected volumes in the series, ‘the terms of reference’ for the final volume – originally planned to cover the period 1914-2000 – ‘remain disturbingly imprecise’. McKenzie offered three explanatory factors: ‘partly because the book must now share its functions with other media with which it is complexly interdependent, partly because the archival resources are so much richer than for earlier periods, [and] partly because new technologies and the emergence of multinational publishing weaken the very premises of a national history’. A quarter of a century on we might add a fourth factor. Compared to earlier volumes in the series the period after 1914 remains largely unmapped – or at best inconsistently plotted. With a much smaller body of existing research on which to draw, this volume should be seen as laying the groundwork for future exploration of the book in Britain since 1914 as much as the summation of current work in the field.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.594 | 0.463 |
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".