Erring from Good Huswifry? The Author as Witness in Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye differ in the extent to which their scientific ideas and social positions allowed them to translate their view of the embodied observer into a steady textual image that was consistent with their methodological and epistemological ideas. However, they are united in a rhetoric of opposition that accommodates their defence against accusations that females had no authority in these matters due to inferior physical and mental qualities (although Cavendish’s defence is far from unequivocal). Moreover, both took on the role of a spokesperson for a member of their family and, again, their interpretation of that role is affected by their scientific views. This article will examine the similarities and differences of their authorial self-fashioning in the context of what was far from homogeneous early modern scientific authorship. Margaret Cavendish et Mary Trye diffèrent dans la mesure dans laquelle leurs idées scientifiques et leurs positions sociales les autorisaient à traduire leur vues de observateur incarné en une image textuelle non seulement constante mais en accord avec leurs idées méthodologiques et épistémologiques. Elles sont toutefois unies par une rhétorique de l’opposition s’adaptant à leur défense contre des accusations affirmant que les femmes n’avaient aucune autorité en la matière en raison de leurs qualités physiques et mentales réduites (bien que la défense de Cavendish soit loin d’être sans équivoque). De plus, toutes deux ont adopté le rôle de porte-parole pour un membre de leur famille et, encore une fois, leur interprétation de ce rôle est affecté par leurs vues scientifiques. Cet article examinera les similarités et différences de leur positionnement auctorial dans un contexte loin de l’homogénéité auctoriale scientifique de la période des débuts de l’ère moderne.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".