“To dress a room for Montagu”: Pacific Cosmopolitanism and Elizabeth Montagu’s Feather Hangings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 6 June 1791, the businesswoman and critic Elizabeth Montagu held a breakfast reception.The party was lavish even by her high standards, and was intended to display the extravagant renovation of her Portland Square townhouse in London.Among the new decorations was a set of enormous panels covered with thousands of feathers sewn into colourful floral wreaths and festoons.Montagu showed these feather panels off to several hundred guests, including Queen Charlotte and five of her daughters.They were described in detail in the next day's newspapers.In Montagu's "feather-room," noted a breathless report on this "elegant fête" printed in more than half a dozen London papers, "the walls are wholly covered with feathers, artfully sewed together." 1 The feathers were "from all parts of the world," marvelled another writer, and had "been ten years in collecting." 2 Their colours had "wonderful effects on a feather ground of a dazzling whiteness," and the "numerous and splendid company," it was concluded, "expressed the warmest approbation of the taste and magnificence of Mrs. MONTAGU." 3 This was presumably all very 1.St. James's Chronicle or the British Evening Post (London, 11-14 June 1791); Whitehall Evening Post (London, 14-16 June 1791); Gazetteer and New Daily
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".