"Puffs of Smoke, Puffs of Praise": Reconsidering John Evelyn’s <i>Fumifugium</i> (1661)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
John Evelyn’s Fumifugium; or, The Inconveniencie of the Aer and Smoak of London Dissipated (1661) is an example both of how books considered as objects might illuminate the practice of printing in seventeenth-century England, and of how the initial significance of a book’s content can be misjudged when its status as a manufactured object is overlooked. An examination of the printing context of Fumifugium reveals that it was written and printed on the heels of the Restoration to gain favour with King Charles II and, while that purpose seemed to have been realized, its contents were less significant even at the time than a puff of the London smoke Evelyn wanted to dissipate. Only much later (and outside of its intended context of the court of Charles II) has this piece been lauded for what Evelyn actually said in it about the nature of air and its pollution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".