Benjamin Disraeli Letters. Volume VIII: 1860-1864, ed. M.G. Wiebe, Mary S. Millar, Ann P. Robson and Ellen L. Hawman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Though his time was not yet, it was not far off’. With these enigmatic words, the current editors of the Disraeli Letters (the last surviving link with the project's original founders) bid adieu to their subject. After twenty-seven years of published output, extending across eight volumes, some 4,000 letters (meticulously located, transcribed and annotated) and a rediscovered co-written novel to boot (A Year at Hartlebury, or The Election [1834]), an introductory prologue informs readers that a ‘revitalized Disraeli Project at Queen's University (Canada)’ will, henceforth, take the edition forward. In one respect, it is disappointing that the current editors were unable to see their subject to ‘the top of the greasy pole’; by any measure of significance, the period after 1865 is immeasurably more important, in the context of Disraeli's life, than the period covered here. It is not surprising, perhaps, that the greatest revelation to come out of this volume is the discovery that Disraeli collaborated with Lionel de Rothschild on the sixteen-page pamphlet, Progress of Jewish Emancipation since 1829 (1848), published in the aftermath of Lord George Bentinck's resignation as leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons over the issue of Jewish Relief and after Rothschild's (technically invalid) election as one of the MPs for the City of London at the 1847 General Election. Both the pamphlet and the four letters establishing Disraeli's active contribution to it are reproduced in their entirety; a further vindication of the project's decision to include new material relating to periods covered in preceding volumes. Indeed, of the 916 letters reproduced in this instalment, some 360 fall outside the parameters of the years 1860 to 1864.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.025 |
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".