<i>A Dictionary of Members of the Dublin Book Trade 1550-1800, Based on the Records of the Guild of St Luke the Evangelist, Dublin</i>, by M. Pollard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada 39/2 before us-beyond the enviable richness of his evidence-that would surprise either a scholar of the Continental Renaissance or an informed historian of early libraries.And his expository method has its limits; though he describes the documents themselves in praiseworthy detail, he has chosen to narrate to us, with the same profusion of detail-what is actually in them, instead of presenting aids to research that would be of greater long-term use: an "Appendix of Books Read," for example.The long list of authors and titles has to be picked slowly out of the narrative, or tracked in the index.This is, nevertheless a pioneering study.It's greatest strength, for the book historian, is in what it contributes to our knowledge of the ways in which a man of that time and place did his reading.Sharpe's energy, and the forceful and effective way he demonstrates to his fellow historians the case for book history, will surely begin to attract to the field historians who will richly profit from it.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.018 |
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".