MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Publicity and Privacy in the History of the British Coffeehouse

2007· article· en· W2093747377 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory Compass · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicityPerformative utterancePublic sphereRomancePresumptionHistoryVitalityAestheticsLiteratureLawArtPolitical sciencePhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The continuing debates amongst early modern historians about the supposed rise of a public sphere have invigorated the history of the British coffeehouse. This article interrogates one central aspect of many histories of the coffeehouse – the presumption that there was a ‘golden age’ of British coffeehouse society in the later seventeenth and earlier eighteenth centuries which entered into a state of decline during the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – and finds it wanting. The article suggests that the history of the coffeehouse public sphere is better understood in terms of a transformation from an early modern ‘performative publicity’ to a Romantic style of public life which reflected changing notions of the relationship between the self and society that have been identified by cultural historians of the Romantic age. Rather than trying to identify the moment of its decline, historians should try to explain the continuing vitality of the coffeehouse, and by extension the coffeehouse public sphere, as they have evolved over the course of the last three and a half centuries.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.025
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory CompassSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207