Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against Deconstruction (John M. Ellis) (Reviewed by Jeffrey Williams, East Carolina University)When the Moon Waxes Red. Representation, Gender and Cultural Politics (Trinh T. Minh-ha) (Reviewed by Charles J. Stivale, Wayne State University)Crusoe's Footprints: Cultural Studies in Britain and America (Patrick Brantlinger) (Reviewed by Ajay Heble, University of Guelph)Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England: A Cultural Poetics (Bruce R. Smith) (Reviewed by Jonathan Crewe, Dartmouth College)Prayer and Power: George Herbert and Renaissance Courtship (Michael C. Schoenfeldt) (Reviewed by Claude J. Summers, University of Michigan-Dearborn)Disseminating Whitman: Revision and Corporeality in Leaves of Grass (Michael Moon) (Reviewed by Patrick Horrigan, Columbia University)Do the Americas Have a Common Literature? (Gustavo P@eacute;rez Firmat) (Reviewed by Leslie Bary, Louisiana State University)The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility (Martin Warner) (Reviewed by Phyllis H. Karminski, Saint Mary's College)And tile View from the Shore: Literary Traditions of Hawai'i (Stephen H. Sumida) (Reviewed by Elton Fukumoto, Honolulu, Hawaii)
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.248 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".