Print, Proximity, and the Marketing of Richard Phillips: Mediating Richardson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In publishing the Correspondence of Samuel Richardson (1804), the prominent London bookseller and manuscript collector Richard Phillips harnessed innovations in book production and advertising to the formation of a new literary and national-biographical canon. As print publication distanced readers from and thus complicated personalized access to texts or their writers, Phillips needed to find ways of mitigating some of these distancing effects by manipulating the very medium that introduced them. His answer was to construct himself as a bridge between Richardson, his letters, and their readers, by inserting himself into a voluminous apparatus of prefaces, appendixes, and images. Phillips thus offered his readers avenues of access to Richardson’s letters where those avenues were inescapably mediated by the letters’ transition from manuscript into print. The figure of Richard Phillips—autograph collector and enterprising bookseller—guaranteed that Richardson’s hand once wrote these letters and touched those pages. It was Phillips who stood as insurance for his readers’ abilities to invest effectively in their imaginative, intimate relationships with Richardson and his circle.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".