Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is article recovers a common history of georgic and fictionality that resides in their shared attention to craft labour. Taking Dryden’s 1697 translation of Virgil’s Georgics as a case study, this essay demonstrates how English georgics adopted a contemporary rhetoric of artisanship, which privileged reticence over the referentiality more often associated with the mode. While many persuasive studies have identified a background for georgic in the history of British empiricism, further examination of the literary inheritances of crafts-manship helps to recover formal perspectives that were often at odds with the goals of Royal Society transmission. Reading Dryden’s text alongside materials relating to the History of Trades Program, I argue that the reticent style of artisanal practice provided a possible solution for dealing with the market pressures facing poetry and the other arts. This tradition of craft poetics is an overlooked genealogy for fiction at mid-century both in terms of fiction’s etymological origins as material craftsmanship and, strategically, as a tacit mode of political dissent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".