MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079400886 · doi:10.1093/notesj/gjm106

Sir John Harington, Hugh Plat, and Ulysses upon Ajax

2007· article· en· W2079400886 on OpenAlexaff
R. H. Bowers, Paul S. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Queries · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAjaxSubject (documents)HistoryArtClassicsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceWeb page

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IN the same year that it appeared, Sir John Harington's satirical exposé about toilets and toileting titled A new discourse of a stale subject called The Metamorphosis of Ajax (1596) received an official rebuff in print titled Ulysses Upon Ajax. The author of this counterblast has never been identified for sure, and possibilities about authorship are—if not impeded—certainly not helped by Early English Books Online (EEBO) continuing to perpetuate the nineteenth-century error of listing Ulysses Upon Ajax under Harington. The British Library continues to do the same even though the STC (2nd edn)—which still lists the piece under Harington—also identifies the piece as ‘not by Harington’. The most recent edition of Halkett and Laing, A Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous Publications in the English Language, declares the piece as misattributed to Sir John Harington and provides the following useful summary: U1 Ulysses upon Ajax … An attack upon A new discourse of a stale subject (N 33); often ascribed to Harington, e.g. in the ed. by S. W. Singer (1814) and in H&L2, but decisively rejected by E. S. Donno, ed., The metamorphosis of Ajax (1962) 14–17.1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNotes and QueriesSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207