MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2896796274 · doi:10.1111/1754-0208.12599

Cultivating Commerce: Cultures of Botany in Britain and France, 1760‐1815. By SarahEasterby‐Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2018. xiv + 239 p. 17 b. and w. illus. £75 (hb). ISBN 978‐1‐107‐12684‐8.

2018· article· en· W2896796274 sur OpenAlexaff
Vin Nardizzi

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal for Eighteenth-Century Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueDiverse Historical and Scientific Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCitationClassicsArt historyMedia studiesLibrary scienceHistorySociologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

book-writing machine that can spit out text with much human input.In the Adventures of an Author (1767) similar machines are cynically contrived to produce indexes and reviews. What Drury'sNovel Machines shows brilliantly is that these satires are only a very small sample of the eighteenth-century attitudes towards machines.A broader one must account for all the ways in which coaches, clocks and instruments were tolerated, accepted and even celebrated.At the furthest horizon of Drury's argument is the claim that machines may even have been admired most in the hybrid formations that saw them entangled with human nature and its representation.His case in point here is novels themselves.Drury shows fictions hailed as things that move us forward, slow us down, invite improvement and account for the necessity of certain feelings and desires running their course.On all these counts they can be understood as being like the machines that were viewed positively in the period.This case works cleverly because Drury toggles between reading quite closely the representations of machines in novels (for instance, the coaches in Tristram Shandy) and a general sense that some of the more affirmative readers of novels were those who saw them mechanically, or allowed them to understand their own natures mechanically.Take Drury's innovative reading of Haywood's Love in Excess.Here he up-ends the standard idea that machines were seen primarily as disciplinary instruments, designed to bring bodies to order.His reading of Haywood tracks instead the kind of passions that she legitimates as mechanical.This is clever, counter-intuitive stuff: enough to make us question much that we've been taught as humanists about where freedom was first imagined.Theoretically, Drury aligns himself at certain points with Bruno Latour, the most influential newcomer to these old conversations about the human-machine relationship.Perhaps the kinship is obvious: like Latour, Drury wants to contest the idea that people and things were ever best understood in opposition.Like Latour, he shows that many of our most precious kinds of human experience (such as fiction) see us entangled deeply with the material world.But there is also an argument with Latour that Drury circumvents, one that would have made the theoretical stakes of Novel Machines clearer.Latour argues that our sense of modernity has arisen from a false belief that we transcend the material and control the mechanical.Drury shows that this has not been the case.The intellectual history he offers is one of writers from all ends of the political spectrum embracing the idea of the machine.If Drury is right, then Latour must on this count be wrong.Drury's own method is conscientious and historically grounded.He's gone out of his way to follow up every extra eighteenth-century lead he could, and Novel Machines is an exemplary guide to much primary material from the period.But for this reason alone it would be good to know more about what an innovative history such as this one might have to say to the arguments of critics including Latour, Donna Haraway and Joanna Zylinska, which assume that we have never been comfortable with human-technology hybrids: that we were human before we become post-human.Drury's work helps reverse their assumptions, and it does so with the kind of modest wisdom that makes literary historians the unsung heroes in keeping larger debates about what modernity was or wasn't on track.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,998
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,184

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,004
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,252
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal for Eighteenth-Century StudiesMême sujetDiverse Historical and Scientific StudiesTravaux en français237 207