Bibliographic record
Abstract
LEAH SCRAGG's handsome new edition of The Woman in the Moon is the last but one item in Manchester University Press's invaluable Revels Plays series of the plays of John Lyly. Students of English Renaissance drama should be particularly grateful to editor and press for this latest volume, which, one trusts, will revive the critical fortunes of this very interesting play. Theatrically, it has not done so badly. Scragg lists a recent revival by the remarkable Poculi Ludique Societas at Toronto in 2000, a tantalisingly underdocumented production by the London University Dramatic Society in 1953, and a performance in 1928 at Bryn Mawr, with the young Katharine Hepburn taking the demanding lead role of Pandora—quite literally ‘starring’ in the case of this astronomical drama. But the play has not been read as much as it should be, and it is to be hoped that Scragg's new edition will at last provide students with the sort of text that will provoke and inform a more widespread and enthusiastic response than has hitherto been the case.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.018 |
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".