Helen Smith. <em>Grossly Material Things: Women and Book Production in Early Modern England</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Pp 254.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a helpful adjunct to Bicks's essay, Kent R. Lehnhof's 'Acting Virtuous: Chastity, Theatricality, and The Tragedie of Mariam' explores the definition and preservation of early modern chastity, which was always a female quality according to Lehnhof, and always to a certain extent a performance.For many early modern authors, 'female virtue is not merely "imperfect" but utterly nonexistent' (220).Thus, the 'the all-too-familiar command that women be chaste, silent, and obedient does not insist upon real female virtue but only adumbrates a preferred performative role .... Women act chastely, in other words, to the extent they play a part not properly or naturally their own' (221, 222).Elizabeth Cary's play is radical in its depiction of the extent to which Mariam herself refuses to conform to masculine expectations for female chastity, which require her at the risk of her life to dissemble, to play at virtue.Lehnhof concludes that Mariam, 'unyielding in her antitheatrical sense of honesty, is the perfect hero for a closet drama intent on opposing itself to the popular state, where actors accommodate themselves to whatever is popular or profitable' ( 225).On the whole, this collection is enjoyable and informative without being consistently provocative or groundbreaking.Several standout essays bring intellectual excitement or a fresh perspective to their subject matter, but some flattening repetition and thematic overlap is to be expected in a collection of this kind.Another perhaps minor problem that develops into a major annoyance is the number of typographical errors, especially in the book's first half: comma errors, missing or transposed words, faulty quotations.These mar the book's professionalism and otherwise consistently high level of scholarship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.011 |
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".