Bibliographic record
Abstract
Michelle O’Callaghan considers the comic political poem “The Parliament Fart”and its distinctively fluid and extemporized form to elucidate the cultures of performance that were intrinsic to the associational world of early modern England. The original composers of the poem, a group of lawyer-wits who sat in the House of Commons, produced an extended and elaborate parody, enlivened by traditions of jesting and play, that testifies to the increasing self-confidence of the Jacobean parliaments. O’Callaghan also studies manuscript miscellanies in which the poem appears, demonstrating the vitality of contemporary legal and parliamentary cultures. 138 michelle o’callaghan 31. Horace, Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica, trans. H. Rushton Fairclough (London, 1970), 316–17; Ellen Oliensis, Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority (Cambridge, 1998), 167–68. 32. The version in Le Prince d’Amour bears a remarkably close resemblance to Bodleian, MS. Malone 23. The couplets appear in almost identical order; aside from a few points where errors in Malone 23 do not appear in Le Prince d’Amour, there are minor textual variations. This printed edition also includes the subtitle found only in Malone 23,“Never was bestow’d such Art / Upon the tuning of a Fart” (Le Prince d’Amour, 93). On these printed miscellanies, see Timothy Raylor, Cavaliers, Clubs, and Literary Culture: Sir John Mennes, James Smith, and the Order of Fancy (Newark, N.J., London, and Toronto, 1994), as well as his edition of Musarum Deliciae; and Adam Smyth, “Profit and Delight”: Printed Miscellanies in England, 1640-82 (Detroit, 2004). On the “recycling”of earlier topical manuscript poetry in later printed miscellanies, see also Smyth’s essay in this volume. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.92 on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:55:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".