Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present era of shrinking budgets and overreliance on digitisation, Cambridge University Press are to be commended for embarking on a full edition of the works of Jonathan Swift, well-bound and on heavy paper. This first volume of a promised 18 is not only a physical monument, it is also an excellent and reliable edition of an encyclopaedic work in need of much annotation, and some editorial clarity, since, written in the 1690s, published first in 1704, and revised in 1710, it is the fifth edition of A Tale of a Tub that is known as the authoritative text. Marcus Walsh supplies contextual appendices, including correspondence between Swift and the publisher Benjamin Tooke, commentaries on A Tale by William Wotton and Edmund Curll and relevant materials from Swift's 1720 Miscellaneous Works, all of which have appeared before in the previous scholarly edition of A Tale of a Tub, edited by A. C. Guthkelch and D. Nichol Smith (Oxford, 1920/1958). Newly collected by Walsh are Swift's editorial matter appended to the posthumous publications of William Temple (his patron and employer during the period in which A Tale was written) as well as his reading list of the period. The editor's introduction, at ninety pages, is a small dissertation in itself: a balanced biographical account of the authorship, publication and reception of this anonymous and controversial volume, its generic sources, as well as its key intellectual contexts in religious and scientific controversy, and the quarrel of the ancients and moderns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.066 |
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".