MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557888282 · doi:10.22439/fs.v0i3.887

<b>David Glimp</b>, <i>Increase and Multiply: Governing Cultural Reproduction in Early Modern England</i>, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003

2005· article· en· W1557888282 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoucault Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNew HistoricismHistoricismTextualityHistoricity (philosophy)LiteratureHistoryNarrativeRhetorical questionAnecdoteSubversionPower (physics)IntertextualityLiterary criticismTrope (literature)AestheticsSociologyPhilosophyArtLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foucault has been a presence in studies of the English literary Renaissance at least since his visit to Berkeley in the early 1980s, often seen as the big bang moment of New Historicism, a mode of approach developed by the Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt but which has influenced the study of all periods and genres of literary production.New Historicism was and is many things; in Greenblatt's hands, it is a vigorous genre of writing that defies in many ways the artificial disciplinary divisions between the critical and creative.Commencing with the description of an early modern anecdote, the genre reads small cultural moments to tell big stories about big power.Despite the fact that Foucault was not much for big bang narratives, nor for the notion that monolithic power structures such as the state or commerce determine absolutely the governed lives of humans, the narrative suggests that New Historicism consistently finds cultural subversion to be "contained" by the order it would challenge by virtue of its relation to Foucault.On the other hand, New Historicism and other literary approaches to history since the 1970s have usefully questioned, after Foucault, the categorical difference between literary and historical documents.In their claims for "the historicity of [literary] texts and the textuality of history" these new historicisms have changed in irrevocable and positive ways our approaches to the study of English literature.Shakespeare is now a dense historical archive, while letters, conduct manuals, navigational treatises and tracts on health are mined for their rhetorical strategies and narrative structures.The discourses revealed in such works are examined in moments of creative tension as they provide differing representations of and commentary on living and knowing in the early modern period.The problem remains that for some historians and literary scholars, (many of whom appear not to have read Foucault), Foucault is New Historicism and especially its weaknesses; in this regard, Foucault as "author function" can evoke hostility in the interlocutors of those who cite him.Historians complain that not only were Foucault's methods faulty, but that the arguments he made about crime and punishment, sexuality and health

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it