“Eating, Drinking and Sleeping”: Exploring Thomas Rowlandson’s <i>Peter Plumb’s Diary</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By close visual and verbal commentary with the focus on Peter Plumb’s Diary (1810), my essay takes issue with Ronald Paulson’s long established belief that Thomas Rowlandson’s graphic satires never tell “more than the simplest anecdote that is least in need of commentary.” A contextual examination of this particular print shows that it is replete with historical and linguistic echoes, which reveal a surprising inventiveness and depth of vision on the part of Rowlandson. His comedic art joyously captures the spirit of the age by finding humour in the everyday aspects of bourgeois life in Regency London. A widening of the frame of reference allows us to see a reiteration of his vis comica in a selection of other works by Rowlandson. The discussion ends with the plea that twenty-first-century art historians and critics should take advantage of the open access to many major collections that digitization allows and endeavour to construct an online and fully searchable catalogue raisonné of Rowlandson’s satires.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".