Marlowe's Soldiers: Rhetorics of Masculinity in the Age of the Armada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and the effect of those portrayals on the audience.In reasserting the often disregarded importance of geohumoralism in the early modern era, Wilson is able to bring her readers closer to the mindset of a typical Renaissance audience.On the other hand, since Wilson never clearly defines the early modern audience in terms of social factors such as class, readers may ask to what degree geohumoral theories were known by common playgoers.Were members of the lower orders even able to access the works of Aristotle, Jean Bodin, and Albertus Magnus?And, finally, were they aware of the efforts of their contemporaries systematically to compensate for the northern peoples' classical marginalization?The likelihood that such knowledge was restricted to the highly educated may undermine somewhat the persuasiveness of Wilson's assertions.Despite the under-emphasis on class-related matters, Wilson's research is quite convincing in its acknowledgment of a theory often discounted as an "erroneous explanation of blackness" (p.5).Although her reading of the historical development of racialist theory may be overly linear in its organization, readers for years to come will benefit from the provocative and important ideas charted in that history.In this book, Wilson reveals not only the anxieties that plagued the early modern mind in regard to geohumoralist theories but also the influence of those trepidations, which have been passed down for centuries under the guise of racialism.Indeed, in attempting to compensate for their marginalization by discrediting climate theory, northern Europeans established the foundation for what would eventually become widely held beliefs regarding race and ethnicity in the modern world.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".