Roger L. Emerson, <i>Essays on David Hume, Medical Men and the Scottish Enlightenment </i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The title of Roger Emerson's Essays on David Hume, Medical Men and the Scottish Enlightenment: "Industry, Knowledge and Humanity" suggests a miscellaneous work.A quick glance at the contents page confirms this impression with essays on reading, Hume, Archibald Campbell, 3rd Duke of Argyll and various aspects of the Scottish Enlightenment.It is a testament to the simplicity of Emerson's style and method of exposition, that his essays engage with several thick and thorny historiographical debates at the same time as providing a welcome path for the uninitiated.The four essays on David Hume that appear in the middle of the book are well ordered and of a high quality.The first three are useful introductions to their subject and intelligent statements of Emerson's belief that Hume's historical and political achievements are as integral to his intellectual achievement as his philosophy.This is not exactly new ground.Nicholas Phillipson's Hume and many more recent works have proven that Hume the historian and Hume the philosopher are inseparable.That said, Emerson's own musings on Hume's historical writings are so neatly woven into the general intellectual landscape of Enlightenment Scotland that I would recommend them to any student of historiography.His other essays on the world of the Scottish Enlightenment, covering topics such as reading and demographics are of general use for historians of the
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".