Richardson, Celebrity, and Editorial Mediation in Anna Meades’s <i>Sir William Harrington</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1757, Anna Meades wrote to Samuel Richardson. She had written a novel in his style. Would he read it, correct it, and publish it? Sir William Harrington (1771) is one of only four books supposed to have been guided by Richardson’s advice after the end of his writing career. Richardson wrote novels not simply to entertain, but to influence; he created models of moral behaviour for his readers to follow. Meades’s novel engages with Richardson’s celebrity status towards several ends, creating a text that operates as a celebrity relic, producing a text that will eventually reach other readers than Richardson’s audience, and thus opening the moral community beyond its original scope. This article looks specifically at this literary celebrity mediation as it operates on several levels. The novel serves as a relic of Richardson, offering the lure that the reader may approximate a synthetic relationship with Richardson by developing an intellectual connection with Richardson’s ideas, friends, protégées, and favoured texts. The novel thus offers readers a synthesized public intimacy with Richardson.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".