MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005657902 · doi:10.1353/scb.2012.0028

<i>Orlando: Women’s Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present</i> (review)

2012· review· en· W2005657902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa A. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryHistoryEmblemBiographyHistory of literatureArt historyLiteratureClassicsMedia studiesSociologyArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Orlando: Women’s Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present Lisa A. Freeman Orlando: Women’s Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present, http://orlando.cambridge.org In the second decade of the twenty-first century, the number of digital Restoration and eighteenth-century archives and databases [End Page 87] has proliferated. There is no longer any doubt that the field has gone digital. With diminishing resources for many universities, however, distinctions need to be made. Worth the investment, Orlando: Women’s Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present (http://orlando.cambridge.org) should be considered indispensable for all scholars of literary history. The Orlando Project was first conceived, in part, as an effort to update the already widely consulted Feminist Companion to Literature in English (1990). Based in the Research Institute for Women’s Writing at the University of Alberta, the project takes its name from Woolf’s Orlando, A Biography, and deploys an oak tree as its emblem, an adept play on the poem composed by her protagonist across historical eras and on the interconnected branches of literary history. The advantages of making a print reference work digital include an exponential increase in information capacity and the flexibility with which that information can be accessed and organized. Much to their credit, the project’s editors, Susan Brown, Patricia Clemens, and Isobel Grundy, have given great consideration to Orlando’s macro- and micro-organizational principles. Ranging across factual, conceptual, critical, and interpretive tags, their customized markup system provides in-depth information on the lives and works of women writers as well as their political, literary, economic, and cultural contexts. With the goal of creating a “comprehensive scholarly history of writing by British women,” it provides individual investigators with a productive tool for generating chronologies and “herstories” that we could only have dreamed of writing in an earlier era. Each author entry in the Orlando text-base offers an extensive overview of the writer’s achievements and detailed discussions and chronologies of the life and writings. There are also individual timelines for each author entry, a generative link section that leads to other entries, and an exhaustive bibliography of the author’s works. The editors also include a number of male writers as well as non-British women writers. While it will eventually be complemented by three print volumes on early, Victorian, and modern writing by women, the digital Orlando will constantly be updated. For this review, I explored the representation of Restoration and eighteenth-century women playwrights. I conducted random cross-checks of Orlando against an earlier print reference work, Women Playwrights in England, Ireland, and Scotland, 1660–1823 (1996), and found only few minor omissions. My in-depth search for women writers who had plays performed during the long eighteenth century yielded an exhaustive chronology of both major and minor women authors. Other searches generated a chronology of women authors who had occasion to interact with Garrick and a timeline of female playwrights at Drury Lane. Each of these searches resulted in a composite portrait of women writers’ ambitions for their plays, their productivity, and their obstacles. The chronologies generated by Orlando reveal a great deal that we might otherwise have missed were we to continue relying solely on conventional cross-referencing. As with any electronic resource, users of Orlando ought to make themselves aware of the selection criteria and search terms. Fortunately, the editors here do more than most to explain their choices and to discuss the potential implications of their markup system. Thanks to their collective intellectual [End Page 88] labors, users will have access to as many rooms of their own as they can imagine. Lisa A. Freeman University of Illinois at Chicago Copyright © 2012 Roy S. Wolper, W. B. Gerard, E. Derek Taylor, and David F. Venturo

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-CatsSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207