The Past, the Future, or an Imitation: Jenny de Mayer and Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout her letters, Jenny de Mayer’s use of varying terminology inreference to the concept of home demonstrates that her ideal of homeonly ever existed in the past or the future, rendering her presentsituations mere imitations of this ideal. Raised as a German-Russian noblewoman with a cosmopolitan background, Jenny de Mayer became a Christian missionary in the early 20th Century. Throughout her life, she traveled across the world, residing in many different places but never staying in a single place for long. Despite her current location – United States, Canada, Switzerland, Algiers, Samarkand, Russia, etc. – she sent letters to various friends and family members, which were collected and saved by her surviving relatives. These collections include many letters in which she describes home. In understanding how Jenny de Mayer viewed home, it is important to note the temporal and geographic aspects of her idea of home. From Jenny de Mayer’s perspective, home was either a situation from her past, a goal for her future, or a location far away but never the place she currently resided in. A place could be “homelike” or “homey” or she could feel “at home,” but these spaces called “home” never measured up to her ideal of home. Thus, for Jenny de Mayer, home in its actuality was always out of reach, as only an imitation of her true home was possible in her present situation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".