Sir Hans Sloane and the Library of Dr Luke Rugeley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In early 1697 Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753), physician and collector, bought a number of books from the library of Luke Rugeley, a renowned fellow physician. Sloane's marked-up copy of the sale catalogue reveals some of Sloane's particular interests in this collection, showing a strong emphasis on German works on alchemy and chemistry. Although Sloane was said to have bought the whole of Rugeley's library, this was not the case: Sloane marked only about one in ten of the lots and acquired only about a quarter of these. Evidence from Rugeley's books now located at the British Library, and from Sloane's own manuscript library-catalogue, demonstrates how Sloane managed and described this material. Many of Rugeley's books bear distinctive annotations, which may have been of particular interest to Sloane in the light of his interest in a remedy for eye disease used by Rugeley. He and his amanuenses made a variety of suggestions concerning the identity of the author of these notes, though none of these can now be substantiated. Sloane seems to have later acquired several other books from Rugeley's library, and other books annotated in the same hand as those from Rugeley's library.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.015 |
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".