{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,28]],"date-time":"2025-04-28T16:33:53Z","timestamp":1745858033575},"reference-count":13,"publisher":"Oxford University Press (OUP)","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,17]],"date-time":"2022-10-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1665964800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/pages\/standard-publication-reuse-rights"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,31]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n               <jats:p>Zeta is a relatively recently developed tool for authorship attribution and computational stylistics (Craig and Kinney, 2009, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). In \u2018The Interpretation of Zeta Test Results\u2019 (2019), Perves Rizvi raised several objections to the method. I responded to and rejected those objections in \u2018Zeta Revisited\u2019 (Hoover, 2021a, Zeta revisited. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 1\u201320). Rizvi has renewed two of his main objections in a critique of my response in his \u2018The Interpretation of Zeta Test Results: A Supplement\u2019 (2022). First, he reiterates and expands his argument that the separation of base and counter segments in a Zeta analysis is a mechanical consequence of Zeta, rather than a significant and meaningful finding. Second, he again rejects the use of the bisector line to attribute texts in a Zeta analysis as unsound and adds new arguments that it leads to invalid attributions. This rejoinder provides further evidence and argument that both of Rizvi\u2019s claims must be rejected.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1093\/llc\/fqac060","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,17]],"date-time":"2022-10-17T18:38:49Z","timestamp":1666031929000},"page":"559-570","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Zeta revisited: A rejoinder"],"prefix":"10.1093","volume":"38","author":[{"given":"David L","family":"Hoover","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of English, New York University , USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"286","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,17]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"27","DOI":"10.1093\/llc\/fqi067","article-title":"All the way through: testing for authorship in different frequency strata","volume":"22","author":"Burrows","year":"2007","journal-title":"Literary and Linguistic Computing"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1017\/CBO9780511605437","volume-title":"Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship","author":"Craig","year":"2009"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B3","author":"DHSI","year":"2001"},{"issue":"1","key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"107","DOI":"10.32614\/RJ-2016-007","article-title":"Stylometry with R: A package for computational text analysis","volume":"8","author":"Eder","year":"2016","journal-title":"The R Journal"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B4","author":"Hoover","year":"2021"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B5","author":"Hoover","year":"2021"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B6","volume-title":"Modes of Composition and the Durability of Style in Literature","author":"Hoover","year":"2021"},{"issue":"3","key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"257","DOI":"10.1353\/hjr.2014.0024","article-title":"Modes of composition in Henry James: dictation, style, and What Maisie Knew","volume":"35","author":"Hoover","year":"2014","journal-title":"Henry James Review"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B8","volume-title":"Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology","author":"Hoover","year":"2013"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"250","DOI":"10.1007\/978-1-137-06574-2_15","volume-title":"Language and Style: Essays in Honour of Mick Short","author":"Hoover","year":"2010"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B10","first-page":"123","volume-title":"Doing Digital Humanities","author":"Hoover","year":"2016"},{"issue":"2","key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"401","DOI":"10.1093\/llc\/fqy038","article-title":"The interpretation of zeta test results","volume":"34","author":"Rizvi","year":"2019","journal-title":"Digital Scholarship in the Humanities"},{"key":"2023053108314291200_fqac060-B12","first-page":"1","article-title":"The interpretation of zeta test results: a supplement","author":"Rizvi","year":"2022","journal-title":"Digital Scholarship in the Humanities"}],"container-title":["Digital Scholarship in the Humanities"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/dsh\/article-pdf\/38\/2\/559\/50487999\/fqac060.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/dsh\/article-pdf\/38\/2\/559\/50487999\/fqac060.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,31]],"date-time":"2023-05-31T09:05:06Z","timestamp":1685523906000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/dsh\/article\/38\/2\/559\/6762053"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,17]]},"references-count":13,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,17]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,31]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/llc\/fqac060","relation":{},"ISSN":["2055-7671","2055-768X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2055-7671","type":"print"},{"value":"2055-768X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published-other":{"date-parts":[[2023,6,1]]},"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,17]]}}}