MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602069728

Peter W. M. Blayney: The Stationers' Company and the Printers of London, 1501-1557

2015· article· en· W2602069728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandra Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Early Book Society for the Study of Manuscripts and Printing History · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicScottish History and National Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParagraphHistoryNarrativeScholarshipObject (grammar)ClassicsLiteratureLawLinguisticsArtPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PETER W. M. BLAYNEY The Stationers' Company and the Printers of London, 1501-1557. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 1,300 pp. Monumental: the word that springs most immediately to the tips of a reviewer's fingers upon contemplating the 1,300 pages of Peter Blayney's The Stationers' Company and the Printers of London, 1501-1557. It is certainly an impressively heavy piece of scholarship; the reviewer and the reviews editor had quite a time working out how to get it from Britain to Canada (or, for that matter, across the room). But the word is perhaps the wrong one. A monumental structure has a metonymic relationship to its object: a monument is something grand that commemorates something even grander. This is not quite what Blayney offers here. As he explains in his preface, his intention on starting the project was corrective rather than comprehensive. Finding that Cyprian Blagden's The Stationers' Company: A History, 1403-1959 dismisses nearly two centuries (1357-1553) in just over twelve pages (21-33) in which there is scarcely a paragraph free of factual errors, assumptions, or both (xxi), he set out to provide scholars of the early-modern book with a better history by rereading and reinterpreting every early source he could find. No other scholar could have done this with Blayney's meticulous care or formidable expertise. If the attention to detail and correction of unfounded assumptions comes at the expense of grand narratives, which it sometimes does, this seems a small price to pay for work of reference that will serve so many so well. Blayney's study is, in short, an extraordinary feat of scholarship. He successfully marshals virtually every mention of any printer, Stationer, or other person active in the book trade (xix) whom he has found for the period 1501 to 1557 and builds a host of compelling new arguments about the history of that trade. The first chapter will be particularly edifying for members of the Early Book Society, whose interests lie at the intersection of manuscript and print cultures. In this chapter, he gives the first authoritative account of the rise of the occupation of stationer in medieval England, the founding of the Stationers' Company in 1403, and the impact of the advent of printing on the established book trade. It may seem strange that this story needs to be told, but it does. Blayney publishes critical, missing facts--about the moment when and the reasons why Richard Pynson and Wynkyn de Worde joined the Stationers' Company, for example. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Early Book Society for the Study of Manuscripts and Printing HistorySame topicScottish History and National IdentityFrench-language works237,207