Bibliographic record
Abstract
“You must get rid … of this Cold, as fast as possible, because we want you at Twickenham!,” cried Richard Owen Cambridge on 22 January 1785 while visiting the ailing Frances Burney at her home in St. Martin’s Street, London. There is little doubt that Cambridge did, indeed, want Burney at Twickenham, often, in fact, possibly even permanently as a daughter-in-law. Invitations to visit Cambridge house and the family estate at Twickenham Meadows, near Richmond Bridge, were frequent during the years between the first meeting of Richard Owen and his son George Owen Cambridge with Burney in late 1782 and Burney’s internment in George III’s court in mid-1786. Nonetheless, it is not clear how much the other members of the Cambridge family wanted her at Twickenham. Burney’s relationship with the Cambridges, especially during the years 1783 to 1786, was problematic at best and for much of the time fraught with tension. More often than not, invitations to Cambridge House provoked anxiety as Burney pondered in her journals how to refuse without giving offence.At the very moment when Burney should have been enjoying her success and fame, she found herself caught in a “situation so full of agitation, so rarely quiet; so frequently replete with distress—confusion—suspence … even torture.” This paper examines Burney’s shifting, sometimes turbulent, relationship with the members of the Cambridge family—Richard Owen and his wife Mary Trenchard; their daughters Charlotte, Catherine, and Mary; and their sons Richard Owen Jr.; Charles Owen, and, especially, George Owen—in an effort to understand the origins and course of, as Burney puts it, the “war which seems regularly to be declared upon my arrival” at Twickenham.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
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".