Let's Get Physical: Bibliography, Codicology, and Seventeenth‐Century Women's Manuscripts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The last twenty years have seen a growing interest in manuscript studies of the early modern period. The recovery of a large amount of women's writing from libraries and archives has expanded our picture of how seventeenth‐century women participated in manuscript culture. This paper argues that attention to the material characteristics of that writing is essential in order to fully understand the varied ways in which manuscripts functioned: how they were produced, circulated, and read. The study of aspects of codicology (watermarks, collation, binding), paleography, transcription practices (such as layout), attribution, provenance, transmission, and the mutual interplay of manuscript and print, among other topics in bibliography, needs to be foregrounded. With reference to a number of works of women's writing this paper argues that the content of a text must not be severed from its physical presentation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it