Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hume Studies Volume 30, Number 1, April 2004, pp. 127-147 The Gallant and the Philosopher LÕ VIA GUIMARÄES I Hume wrote about women, for women, and even with the help of women. When he obtained the post of Librarian to the Faculty of Advocates, a dramatic affair related in detail in a letter to John Clephane, he recognized in women his decisive allies, in spite of the accusations of skepticism, atheism, and deism, of which Hume was then, as on so many other occasions, a victim. In his words: What is more extraordinary, the cry of religion could not hinder the ladies from being violently my partisans, and I owe my success in a great measure by their solicitations. One has broke off all commerce with her lover, because he voted against me! And Mr. Lockhart, in a speech to the Faculty, said there was no walking the streets, nor even enjoying one's own fireside, on account of their importunate zeal. The town says, that even his bed was not safe for him, though his wife was cousin-german to my antagonist.1 As an author careful of the cultivation of style and concerned, to obsession, with having his text expunged of all traces of Scotticisms, he seems to have sometimes trusted, although not directly, its polish to their knowledge of language, a matter in which he considered women superior to men. Another letter to John Clephane gives evidence: It is a rule of Vaugelas always to consult the ladies, rather than men, in all doubts of language; and he asserts, that they have a more delicate sense Livia Guimaräes is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Departamento de FilosofÃ-a, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Antonio Carlos 6627, BeIo Horizonte, MG, 31270-901, Brazil, e-mail: livia.guimaraes@terra.com.br or liviaguimaraes@ufmg.br 128 Livia Guimaräes oÃ- the propriety of expressions. The same author advises us, if we desire any one's opinion in any grammatical difficulty, not to ask him directly; for that confounds his memory, and makes him forget the use, which is the true standard of language. The best way, says he, is to engage him as it were by accident, to employ the expression about which we are in doubt. Now, if you are provided of any expedient, for making the ladies pronounce the word enough, applied both to quantity and number, I beg you to employ it, and to observe carefully and attentively, whether they make any difference in the pronunciation. (L 1:182-3) And as an essay writer, he introduces himself as Ambassador from the "learned" (masculine?) to the "conversible" (feminine?) world, and he goes as far in some essays as to address women readers exclusively, by choosing themes he supposes they either should, or would, be especially interested in. He is even willing to produce writings by their express request, at times making this offer playfully, as in the following, to William Mure of Caldwell: Make my humble Compliments to the Ladies, & tell them I should endeavour to satisfy them, if they wou'd name the Subject of the Essay they desire. For my part I know not a better subject than themselves; if it were not, that accuse'd of being unintelligible in some of my Writings, I shou'd be extremely in Danger of falling into that Fault, when I shou'd treat of a Subject so little to be understood as Women. I wou'd, therefore, rather have them assign me, the Deiform Fund of the Soul, the passive Union of Nothing with Nothing, or any other of those mystical Points, which I wou'd endeavour to clear up, & render perspicuous to the meanest Readers. (L 1:44-5) At other times his willingness to comply with the requests of women is expressed in a teasing manner, as in "Of Love and Marriage," an essay Hume describes as a "panegyric upon marriage," composed to gratify a "humour" ofthe "fair sex," at the same time as he jocosely gives warning that he fears it may degenerate into a satire.2 But Hume also speaks in earnest to and of women. For example, the second...
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it