Bibliographic record
Abstract
THIRTY-TWO years have elapsed since the publication of the first volumes in the Records of Early English Drama (REED) series, York, ed. Alexandra Johnston and Margaret Rogerson (University of Toronto Press, 1979, 2 vols.). Those years have witnessed the steady onward march, collection by collection, of the series of volumes affectionately known at REED as the red army. Numerous people have devoted substantial parts of their academic careers to furthering the cause of the project, and their rewards (while not financial) have been considerable in other ways. The prose in the preceding paragraph, if it had been written in the late nineteenth century about some earlier projects (such as, say the New Variorum Shakespeare, the Oxford English Dictionary or the Dictionary of National Biography) would have been deemed a self-sufficient explanation of the past and a map for the future: publish further volumes, complete the project, and rest. . . . But now, for REED (and for those other projects in their later iterations) such words, such aims, no longer suffice. The future cannot be like the past, because of the dizzying march of new technology. Those of us who have devoted much effort to the REED Patrons and Performances Web Site project (http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/) have been immediately and continuously aware of the promises and demands of the new technology, because we have responded as technology has enlarged, changed, and re-directed this site in ways that we could not have envisaged, even in wild dreams. The three main engines of these changes have been the development of database management systems and mass online storage, the incredible growth and powers of the Internet, and the huge new flexibilities and powers of GIS (Geographical Information System) mapping. As we have responded to this changing environment we have become increasingly aware that it must and will change the scope and direction of the main REED project itself, toward becoming a digital, Internet -based reference resource and teaching/learning tool. Recounting how this has happened is our aim in this article. While it is co-authored (its two writers, Sally-Beth MacLean and Alan Somerset, have exchanged drafts, bounced ideas back and forth, and agreed on conclusions) it is the result of complementary responsibilities. Alan Somerset has written about the development of database technology and mass storage; Sally-Beth MacLean has written about GIS mapping and its powers and possibilities and the Early Modern London Theatres project; and we have both peered into the same crystal ball to envision the future REED edition. To recall the beginnings of the REED Patrons and Performances Web Site takes us back to 1979-80, when Dr. Somerset undertook to recover the information contained in the scrapbooks compiled by James Orchard HalliwellPhillipps and preserved at the Folger Shakespeare Library and elsewhere. The result was a database in which most information fields were restricted to four or fewer characters, designed and written in COBOL, and processed from two cartons of punchcards on a CYBER computer to produce a Computer-generated Output Microfiche (COM fiche), containing all the information on one fiche. You could hardly find any of that stuff anymore, even in a museum. We move forward to 1984, when five collections had been published (York [1979], Chester [1979], Coventry [1981], Newcastle upon Tyne [1982], and Norwich 1540-1642 [1984]). All collections contained records of professional actors, but David Galloway's Norwich 1540-1642 was the first to include a list of Patrons and Travelling Companies, identifying with more assurance the patrons of touring entertainers who showed up at Norwich and providing relevant biographical details - the patrons' titles, locally held offices, lands and principal residences - as well as culling the dates of performance events and classifying the types of entertainer in the Norwich records for easy reference. …
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".