Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Approximately 240 new grammars of English were published during the eighteenth century (figures from Michael 1970: 277, 588–94; McIntosh 1998: 172). At least fourteen of these were written by women: the first was Anne Fisher's New Grammar , frequently republished after its first edition of 1745. Several were written for a specifically female audience: these include some written by men as well as Ellin Devis's The Accidence … for Young Ladies (1775) and Lady Fenn's The Mother's Grammar (1798). What can we infer from these facts and figures? In general, the proliferating grammatical publications remind us that vernacular education was a necessary investment for men and women who sought to profit from their culture's economic and social volatility. Moreover, by ordering English and its speakers, grammarians of both sexes participated in major Enlightenment debates, especially about the role of culture in shaping ‘nature’. Eighteenth-century women's grammars give us an even sharper perspective on British culture. As Tieken-Boon van Ostade has observed, in comparison to countries such as the Netherlands with its single female grammarian, despite cultural restrictions on women's intellectual activities, ambitious parents had sufficient interest in girls' education in eighteenth-century Britain both to inspire and to reward some authors (2000b: 879). Moreover, as Cajka has emphasised, some of the grammars written by women were as, or more, popular and influential than some of the now-canonical women's novels (2003: 244f.).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.009 |
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".