Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the 1980s, when periodization fell out of favor among historians, the development of printing was used as one of the markers for the onset of the Renaissance. Thus the significance of printing has long been recognized. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, its impact on social and intellectual history moved to the center of research in early modern history. This interest may be explained by the fact that the last decades of the 20th century experienced a media shift that equals the importance of the shift in the 15th century. Elizabeth L. Eisenstein’s seminal 1979 book The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (see Eisenstein 1979 cited under General Overviews) was in the vanguard of this wave of research. Criticism of Eisenstein for placing too much emphasis on the revolutionary character of printing and its singular impact on the Reformation has prompted some modification in the approach to the history of printing, but the recognition of its significance for the dissemination of information and learning and as an opinion maker has remained unchanged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.037 |
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".