Bibliographic record
Abstract
MUCH recent work on Shakespeare has examined the relationship between play and book and the dramatist's literary aspirations in the context of the history of the book. In Shakespeare and the Idea of the Book Charlotte Scott is at pains to distinguish her own work from this. She is concerned with the book as material object as it appears on the stage, aiming to ‘trace the book from its immediate theatrical impact to its broader implications within Elizabethan or Jacobean discourse’ (p. 5); and as a rich and versatile metaphor through which she proposes ‘to explore the deeply unstable nature of Shakespeare's books, and to pursue the profound, violent, sceptical, secular, or devoted questions they raise within the context and drama of the bodies that hold, touch, speak, read, or destroy them’ (p. 15). This is a large and potentially fruitful project. As Scott notes, the word ‘book’ appears in all but two of the thirty-eight plays attributed to Shakespeare; of these she chooses seven, intended to represent in their chronology and range a variety of ways in which Shakespeare investigated the relationship between play and book. In five chapters she provides some interesting and provocative readings, but these essays do not hold together. This is partly, I think, because her definition of ‘book’ does not hold together.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.016 |
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".