Bibliographic record
Abstract
But whither am I wandering? I am got, without knowing how, into politics, a subject of all others the least agreeable either to my sex or to my disposition. ( The Old Maid 31 [June 12, 1756]) I understand Mrs. Brooke has been a Devilish instrument against you, but has done no harm, and is blown up. (Patrick Murray, Lord Elibank, to General James Murray, March 24, 1765) A comparative examination of eighteenth-century women writers and their texts clearly shows wide variations in the degree to which these writers envisioned themselves as what H. T. Dickinson calls “political agents.” Once we have moved beyond an oversimplified notion of mid-century women as restricted to a domestic, or private, sphere of action distinct from the public spheres of politics and letters, we can begin to see some variations in agency represented in records of professional lives, in paratextual statements, or in actual publications. Some writers clearly saw their publications, pace Habermas, participating in a public sphere that was overtly political, and not merely literary. Whereas I will argue in my third chapter that Sarah Scott intervened in a self-conscious but deliberately disembodied and fragmented sense in a republic of letters, focusing in her historical biographies on the social responsibilities of the “private” gentleman of property, I have shown that Frances Sheridan more explicitly connects Sidney Bidulph's story with the public genre of tragedy in the politically resonant form of John Home's Douglas .
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".