Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a recent book, Making Publics in Early Modern Europe, the author and his fourteen collaborators developed an account of how works of art and intellect, and the people who made and enjoyed them, changed the shape of early modern European society by creating what they called ‘publics’, which they defined as ‘new forms of association that allowed people to connect with others in ways not rooted in family, rank, or vocation, but rather founded in voluntary groupings built on the shared interests, tastes, commitments, and desires of individuals’. They described publics as ‘dynamic social entities that are constituted in part by the making public of particular kinds of made things along with their makers and partakers’. However, they observed that describing public making in this way made ‘it sound as if the public were an already-existing space into which things and people could be inducted, but in fact public making is a process by which social and material relations are reassembled so that a public space ... is created where one did not exist before’. This article asks, just what was this public space? How was it made? To begin to answer these questions, the article focuses on how Thomas Middleton's drama fashioned a public space where one did not exist before, on what the character of that space was, and on how Middleton's spatial innovations helped to create a new form of public association among a heterogeneous group of people. It suggests that by playing with space, Middleton's drama made a theatrical public with its own space of publicity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".