A New Context for the Manuscript of <i>Wit and Science</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
John Redford’s interlude The Play of Wit and Science (ca 1540) is surrounded in British Library Additional Manuscript 15233 by a rarely noted collection of music, poems, and song lyrics by Redford, Richard Edwards, John Thorne, Miles Huggarde, Thomas Pridioxe, Master Knyght, and John Heywood. Scholars have always assumed Redford wrote the play into the manuscript during his time as organist and master of the choirboys at St Paul’s cathedral (ca 1530-47), but new bibliographical evidence indicates that the entire manuscript was in fact compiled and bound during the mid 1550s. By piecing together the connections between the named contributors to Add MS 15233 during the 1550s, this article suggests that a social and artistic network centring on the parish church of St Mary-at-Hill in Billingsgate, London produced this copy of Wit and Science and the manuscript in which it is contained.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.011 |
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".