MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W912827939

Reading England's Mail: Mid-Century Appropriation and Charles Dickens's Traveling Texts

2013· article· en· W912827939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Herzl-Betz

Bibliographic record

VenueDickens quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Policy, and Dickens Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationNarrativePrint cultureHistoryCultural appropriationReading (process)Media studiesSociologyLiteratureLawArtPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charles Dickens habitually connects two Victorian industries that regulate texts traveling to America and creates an image of British words in danger across the Atlantic. Both international copyright law and the reformed British post office have received excellent treatments in isolation, most notably by Lawrence Houtchens, Gerhard Joseph, Richard Hank, Meredith McGill, Catherine Golden, and Kate Thomas, but critics have yet to explore the relationship between the two, either in Dickens's work or in transatlantic print culture. In the mid-nineteenth century, Dickens identified himself as a vocal supporter of stringent international copyright regulations and of England's Penny Post. In travel narratives, novels, and periodicals alike, Dickens's use of reprinted articles and lost letters reveals a common fear of textual and--ultimately--national violation. Supporters of international copyright did their best to stop American publishers from claiming England's texts as their own, while the Penny Post promised to do the same for private letters, preventing interpersonal communication from being redirected, read, and published on American soil. To some extent, both fears were overblown. The American postal system did not misplace an unusually large number of English letters, and many British authors used American reprinting practices for their own benefit. Why then, we might ask, do Dickens's novels and essays demonstrate ongoing--and intertwined--anxiety about public and private textual appropriation? More importantly, why does that anxiety conflate two forms of American textual piracy, suggesting that English words are not safe abroad? The linguistic threat of appropriation lies deep within Dickens's canon, structuring and inflecting his characters' relationship with Brother Jonathan. (1) My critical intervention responds to Amanda Claybaugh's call for a new transatlanticism that investigates material networks between the United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, and the Americas (439). For the moment, I limit my inquiry to links between Britain and the United States, but I can imagine a productive extension of similar questions to other locations on the Atlantic rim. My exploration of postal and periodical appropriation also consciously begins from a British perspective and spreads outward. Like McGill, who addresses transatlantic reprinting from an explicitly American perspective, I start within a national archive and use a transatlantic mode of reading to emphasize the textual networks that call national boundaries into being and call those same boundaries into question. By attending to transatlantic flow and exchange, I hope to explore intersections between postal and periodical appropriation that, until recently, literary studies was too specialized to acknowledge (Flint 270). After tracing how the post office and the periodical press increasingly stand in for national identity, and the intersection between the two transatlantic systems in Charles Dickens's career, I turn to three telling moments. The first from American Notes for General Circulation, the second from Martin Chuzzlewit, and the third from a Household Words article co-written by W. H. Wills entitled Valentine's Day at the Post Office, collectively imply that the problem of unsafe texts may not limit itself to American shores. Between 1830 and 1860, both the British postal system and the periodical press were on the rise, and, during that same period, both became increasingly associated with an English identity. On January 10, 1840, England introduced the Penny Post, which standardized the postage rate, gave senders the responsibility for payment, and facilitated the reliable delivery of personal mail. Postal reform may have begun as a practical necessity, but a successful promotional campaign transformed it into what Kate Thomas would call an instrument and metaphor of national unification (11). As an instrument, the post expanded the horizon for England's communication and organization. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDickens quarterlySame topicMigration, Policy, and Dickens StudiesFrench-language works237,207