Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses upon the county natural history, a genre of writing unique to \nEngland in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century which spanned \nsubjects which we might now refer to as genealogy, heraldry, cartography, \nbotany, geology, and mineralogy, among others, while retaining a focus on a \nsingle county. It situates the genre firmly as a successor to local antiquarianism \nand chorography in Tudor and early Stuart England. \nIn focusing on a single genre which spans both historical and natural \ntopics, methodologies of enquiry from several historiographic fields are utilized: \nparticularly heavily drawn upon are historical geography, historical epistemology, \nas well as cultural histories of both history and religion. The thesis aims to make \ntwo specific historiographic contributions. Firstly, it demonstrates the value of \nintegrating cultural histories of natural objects and the landscape with historical \nepistemology. As well as being an object of philosophical or “scientific” \nknowledge, nature and the landscape held significant cultural meaning, \nparticularly when located in historical narratives and understood as part of God’s \nworld. This is exposed particularly clearly in chapter four’s discussion of physicotheology’s \nduality: both biblical and natural study combined to emplace God in \nthe landscape. Secondly the thesis offers a reflection on the meanings of locality, \nplace, and the construction of the landscape utilized in historical geography and \nthe history of science. In this period both the nation and physical landscape were \nenvisaged as constructed from discrete “parts”, counties. This is set in the \ncontext of earlier, and better known, ‘nation’ constructions, Camden’s \nconstruction of the nation by analogy to the human body around the turn of the \nseventeenth century, and Defoe’s construction of the nation as a trade network \ncentred upon London in 1724.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.031 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".