Bibliographic record
Abstract
2 For instance, Stuart Piggott, Ruins in a Landscape: Essays in Antiquarianism, Edinburgh, 1976; Kevin Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton 1586-1631: History and Politics in Early Modern England, Oxford, 1979; Graham Parry, Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of the Seventeenth Century, Oxford, 1995. 3 D. R. Woolf, The Idea of History in Early Stuart England: Erudition, Ideology and 'the Light of Truth' from the Accession of James I to the Civil War, Toronto, 1990. 4 D. R. Woolf, Reading History in Early Modern England, Cambridge, 2001. 5 D. R. Woolf, 'A Feminine Past? Gender, Genre and Historical Knowledge in England, 1500-1800', American Historical Review 102: 3, 1997, pp. 645-79. 6 Adam Fox, Oral and Literate Culture in England 1500-1700, Oxford, 2000, chap. 4; Keith Thomas, The Perception of the Past in Early Modern England, The Creighton Lecture 1983, London, 1984. 7 Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 2 vols in 1, Cambridge, 1979; Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word, London and New York, 1982. 8 Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making, Chicago, 1998. 9 Margaret Aston, 'English Ruins and English History: the Dissolution and the Sense of the Past', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36, 1973, pp. 231-55. 10 I am currently engaged in research on these and other post-Reformation landscape legends. Ronald Hutton, 'The English Reformation and the Evidence of Folklore', Past and Present 148, 1995, pp. 89-116. 11 See, among others, Richard W. Southern, 'Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing: 4: The Sense of the Past', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. 23, 1973, pp. 243-63. 12 Michael T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307, Oxford, 1979. 13 See, among others, Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium, Princeton, 1994 and The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Yitzhak Hen and Matthew Innes, Cambridge, 2000.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".