<i>De viris illustribus/On Famous Men</i> . By J <scp>ohn</scp> L <scp>eland</scp> . Ed. and trans. by J <scp>ames</scp> P. C <scp>arley</scp> with C <scp>aroline</scp> B <scp>rett</scp> <i>De viris illustribus</i> / <i>On Famous Men</i> . By LelandJohn. Ed. and trans. by CarleyJames P. with BrettCaroline (British Writers of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, 1.) Toronto and Oxford: The Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies and The Bodleian Library. 2010. clx + 868 pages + 8 plates. $175.00. <scp>isbn</scp> 978 0 88844 172 0.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reputation of most authors rests on the works that they have published. John Leland, the Tudor antiquary and poet, provides an interesting exception to this rule. Although he was esteemed by contemporaries and is still widely known to scholars of early modern England, relatively few of his books were printed during his working lifetime. (The two most important of these were the Cygnea cantio, a Latin poem describing a journey down the Thames from Oxford to Greenwich and Leland's Assertio inclytissimi Arturii regis Brittaniae, an impassioned defence of the historicity of King Arthur). Leland's masterwork, De viris illustribus, a biographical dictionary of British writers, was nearly complete when Leland became insane, but it was not published until 1709, in an uncritical edition compiled by Anthony Hall. This work, which Hall entitled the Commentarii de Scriptoribus Britannicis, despite its imperfections, remained the sole edition of De viris illustribus in print until the present day and the appearance of James Carley's new and vastly improved edition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.168 | 0.110 |
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".