Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the social politics of literary production at London's Inns of Court from 1572 to 1634. Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of cultural production are widened beyond his own French academic context so that the Inns may be located as institutions central to the formation of literary and, in particular, dramatic culture in early modern London. A significant part of Bourdieu's research has concerned the establishment of a foundation for a sociological analysis of literary works. The literary field, Bourdieu argues, is but one of many possible fields of cultural production—social networks of struggle over valued economic, cultural, scientific, or religious resources. As a historically constituted arena of activity with its own specific institutions, rules, and capital, the juridical field of early modern London was a competitive market in which legal agents struggled for the power to determine the law. Within this field, the Inns of Court served as unchartered law schools in which the valuable cultural currency of the common law was transmitted to the resident students, whose association with this currency was crucial for their pursuit of social prestige. Focusing on the four Inns of Court as central institutions in the juridical field and their relationship with the larger political and economic forces of London, that is, the field of power, the thesis demonstrates how the literary art associated with these institutions relates to the students' struggle for social legitimation, particularly in their interaction with the City and the Crown. By demonstrating how the structures of literary texts reflect the structures of the relationship between the Inns and other centers of urban power, this analysis examines the pivotal role(s) played by law students in the development of London's literary culture.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".