Review of <i> American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting</i> and <i>Forgotten Readers: Recovering the Lost History of African American Literary Societies</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both these volumes demonstrate the exciting potential, as well as the pitfalls, of applying history-of-the-book methodologies to American literary history in ways that complicate traditional author-centered paradigms. In American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, Meredith McGill focuses on the logic that drove publishers, legislators, and readers to resist an author-driven copyright law for much of the nineteenth century, brilliantly overturning pieties about the “failure” of the law to do justice to authors and analyzing “unauthorized” reprinting as a system functional on its own terms, rather than criticizing it as dysfunctional in contrast to the later proprietary system imagined as perfectly functional. Elizabeth McHenry’s Forgotten Readers recovers free African American readers (primarily in the North) who participated in literary societies as both readers and producers of texts, challenging models of African American literary history that find origins in the “stolen” literacy of slaves in the South and in the slave narrative as a genre.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".