Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The high school English classroom is the most influential literary institution in the United States, and the most overlooked by literary scholars. This essay examines the literary canon of US secondary schools alongside the co-curricular institutions—from Advanced Placement to CliffsNotes and the Common Core—that have shaped classroom practice since 1945. Cold War investments in cultivating the nation’s youth contributed to the foundation of the Advanced Placement program, as well as to the practice of reading for “character development,” an interpretive strategy that transforms every text into a bildungsroman. In the same period, New Critical notions of reading for “theme” became central to high school English, but also worked to dehistoricize and deracinate texts, especially those by writers of color. Since 2010, the Common Core State Standards have de-emphasized the reading of literature altogether, a major yet often undiscussed factor in the decline of university English. Reading novels by J. D. Salinger, Colson Whitehead, and Jennifer Egan through the lens of the classroom, this essay argues that understanding high school English is essential for those who study American literary history as well as those who seek to ensure its future.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".