Bibliographic record
Abstract
messages in code, petticoat hoop skirts, tie-on pockets, erotic cabinets, far-flung grottoes, ornamental dairies, and the gilded quarters of colonial parvenus in London: these interiors make up this special issue. Unlike the ancestral homes that have supplied our visions of eighteenth-century interiors—from the prison of Mr B’s Lincolnshire estate to the “lofty and handsome” rooms of Darcy’s Pemberley—the interiors here are move able, protean, and eminently malleable. And unlike the Gothic grandeur of Squire Allworthy’s Paradise Hall or the terror-ridden corridors of Udolpho, Otranto, and Mazzini, these interiors spring from fresh lineages and inventions, and belong more to the laws of imagination than to those of patrimony and history. Novel rather than traditional, portable rather than fixed, contingent rather than central, transient rather than permanent, and adaptable rather than monolithic, the interiors in this issue move much more freely between the interior and the exterior than was imagined before. They reframe and even challenge customary ideas of the eighteenth-century interior as a domestic space. In the cases of Ariane Fennetaux’s pockets or Katherine Ellison’s coded epistles, for instance, the interiors emerge as things that one can hold in the hand and take outside the home. It is through their functions of carrying, concealing, and conveying other things, from sewing tools, miniature portraits, and books to secret information, that they become interior spaces. Their surfaces bear markings that promote legibility Moving Parts: The Life of Eighteenth-Century Interiors
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".