Bio: Jordan Sellers is an academic researcher from University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. The author has contributed to research in topics: Synchronization networks & Network dynamics. The author has an hindex of 4, co-authored 4 publications receiving 61 citations.
TL;DR: The authors studied the stylistic differences associated with literary prominence across a century and found that there is a steady tendency for new volumes of poetry to change by slightly exaggerating certain features that defined prestige in the recent past.
Abstract: A history of literary prestige needs to study both works that achieved distinction and the mass of volumes from which they were distinguished. To understand how those patterns of preference changed across a century, we gathered two samples of English-language poetry from the period 1820–1919: one drawn from volumes reviewed in prominent periodicals and one selected at random from a large digital library (in which the majority of authors are relatively obscure). The stylistic differences associated with literary prominence turn out to be quite stable: a statistical model trained to distinguish reviewed from random volumes in any quarter of this century can make predictions almost as accurate about the rest of the period. The “poetic revolutions” described by many histories are not visible in this model; instead, there is a steady tendency for new volumes of poetry to change by slightly exaggerating certain features that defined prestige in the recent past.
21 Aug 2012
TL;DR: This article argued that the ideological biases of battlefield maps prompted William Wordsworth's radical critique of naval commemoration in “Benjamin the Waggoner.” Although the campaigns of the army created travel destinations for battlefield tourism, the naval battlefield occupies a strange space in Romantic commemoration.
Abstract: As the Napoleonic Wars ended, deceptively simple forms of commemorative militaria attuned Romantic writers to the overrepresentation of officers in victory culture. This article asserts that the ideological biases of battlefield maps prompted William Wordsworth's radical critique of naval commemoration in “Benjamin the Waggoner.” Although the campaigns of the army created travel destinations for battlefield tourism, the naval battlefield occupies a strange space in Romantic commemoration. Lacking a “place” for tourists to stand, naval commemoration induced geographic simulations from victory arboretums to dinner plates adorned with tactical maps. Inspired by the assumed objectivity of simulations such as these, Wordsworth's poem mocks the discharged sailor's reenactment of the Battle of the Nile for its revisionist geography. By overinvesting Nelson in the battle's history, Wordsworth's poem reveals the limits of patriotic nostalgia and its tendency to elide the memory of departed seamen and the families ...
19 May 2015
TL;DR: The authors compare two different samples of poetry: one group of 360 volumes that was reviewed in prestigious venues between 1820 and 1919, and another that was selected randomly from HathiTrust Digital Library.
Abstract: It's hard to generalize meaningfully about the standards that govern literary reception, and even harder to describe how they change. This article tries to get some leverage on this difficult problem by contrasting two different samples of poetry: one group of 360 volumes that was reviewed in prestigious venues between 1820 and 1919, and another that was selected randomly from HathiTrust Digital Library. We train a model to predict reception using only word frequencies from these volumes, and then use that model to draw inferences about the pace and direction of literary change. For instance, how are diachronic changes related to synchronic standards of prestige? The collections of data and metadata that underpin this argument were made possible through grant support from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies. Code, data, and metadata are available at the github repo below.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors consider the interplay of the two, specifically, how changes in network structure effect the dynamics of the network components, and they use the specialization model known to produce many of the well-known features observed in real-world networks.
Abstract: Real-world networks are dynamic in that both the state of the network components and the structure of the network (topology) change over time. Most studies regarding network evolution consider either one or the other of these types of network processes. Here we consider the interplay of the two, specifically, we consider how changes in network structure effect the dynamics of the network components. To model the growth of a network we use the specialization model known to produce many of the well-known features observed in real-world networks. We show that specialization results in a nontrivial equitable partition of the network where the elements of the partition form clusters that have synchronous dynamics. We also show that these synchronizing clusters inherit their ability to either locally or globally synchronize from the subnetwork from which they are specialized. To the best of the authors’ knowledge this may be the first example of a topological mechanism that induces spontaneous synchronization and real-world like growth. Thus, network specialization can be used to model the co-evolution of dynamic and topological features found in real-world systems. • Introduction of a new mechanism for spontaneous synchronization in complex networks. • The mechanism is based on the structural evolution of the network. • Specialization creates equitable partitions, i.e. clusters, that synchronize. • Synchronizing clusters inherit their stability from unspecialized subnetworks.
01 Jan 2016
Abstract: Thank you for downloading elements of style. As you may know, people have search hundreds times for their chosen novels like this elements of style, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they are facing with some infectious bugs inside their desktop computer. elements of style is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our digital library spans in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the elements of style is universally compatible with any devices to read.
TL;DR: The bibliographies of the Keats-Shelley Journal as discussed by the authors provide a broad overview of the history of British Romanticism with an emphasis on second-generation writers, particularly John Keats, Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, Leigh Hunt, and William Hazlitt.
Abstract: T he annual bibliography of the Keats-Shelley Journal catalogues recent scholarship related to British Romanticism, with emphasis on secondgeneration writers—particularly John Keats, Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, Leigh Hunt, and William Hazlitt. The bibliography includes books, chapters in books, book reviews, articles in journals, other bibliographies, dissertations, and editions of Romantic-era literature and historical documents. The listings are compiled primarily from the catalogues of major British and American publishers and from the tables of contents of books and major journals in the field. The first section of the bibliography lists a wide range of scholarly work on Romanticism that might be of interest to the Journal’s readers, while the subsequent sections list items that deal more specifically with the six aforementioned authors. Because the length of the bibliography precludes my annotating every item, only some entries have annotations—primarily books dealing with the second-generation Romantics. The following bibliography catalogues scholarship for the year 2015, along with the occasional item that inadvertently may have been excluded from the annual bibliography in previous years or that may have arrived too late for inclusion. While I have made every attempt to keep the bibliography accurate and comprehensive, the occasional error or omission is inevitable. Please send corrections, additions, and citations for upcoming bibliographies to Ben P. Robertson at Troy University (firstname.lastname@example.org).
TL;DR: This question of disciplinary meaning, which I ask from the viewpoint of the humanities generally, is larger than the question of the disciplinary identity now preoccupying "Digital Humanities" itself as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: This question of disciplinary meaning—which I ask from the viewpoint of the humanities generally—is larger than the question of disciplinary identity now preoccupying “DH” itself, as insiders call it. Having reached a critical mass of participants, publications, conferences, grant competitions, institutionalization (centers, programs, and advertised jobs), and general visibility, the field is vigorously forming an identity. Recent debates about whether the digital humanities are a “big tent” (Jockers and Worthey), “who's in and who's out?” (Ramsay), whether “you have to know how to code [or be a builder]” (Ramsay, “On Building”), the need for “more hack, less yack” (Cecire, “When Digital Humanities”; Koh), and “who you calling untheoretical?” (Bauer) witness a dialectics of inclusion and exclusion not unlike that of past emergent fields. An ethnographer of the field, indeed, might take a page from Claude Levi-Strauss and chart the current digital humanities as something like a grid of affiliations and differences between neighboring tribes. Exaggerating the differences somewhat, as when a tribe boasts its uniqueness, we can thus say that the digital humanities—much of which affiliates with older humanities disciplines such as literature, history, classics, and the languages; with the remediation of older media such as books and libraries; and ultimately with the value of the old itself (history, archives, the curatorial mission)—are not the tribe of “new media studies,” under the sway of the design, visual, and media arts; Continental theory; cultural criticism; and the avant-garde new. Similarly, despite significant trends toward networked and multimodal work spanning social, visual, aural, and haptic media, much of the digital humanities focuses on documents and texts in a way that distinguishes the field's work from digital research in media studies, communication studies, information studies, and sociology. And the digital humanities are exploring new repertoires of interpretive or expressive “algorithmic criticism” (the “second wave” of the digital humanities proclaimed in “The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0” ) in a way that makes the field not even its earlier self, “humanities computing,” alleged to have had narrower technical and service-oriented aims. Recently, the digital humanities' limited engagement with identity and social-justice issues has also been seen to be a differentiating trait—for example, by the vibrant #transformDH collective, which worries that the digital humanities (unlike some areas of new media studies) are dominantly not concerned with race, gender, alternative sexualities, or disability.