<scp>Paul Salzman</scp>. <i>Editors Construct the Renaissance Canon, 1825-1915</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This compact, useful study of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century editorial practice, is one of a few recent books that attempt to define the origins and describe the evolution of the canon upon which teaching and scholarship in the field of early modern literature are based. Others include Kirk Melnikoff’s Elizabethan Publishers and the Making of Literary Culture, Emma Depledge and Peter Kirwan’s collection Canonising Shakespeare: Stationers and the Book Trade 1640-1740, Kirwan’s Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha: Negotiating the Boundaries of the Dramatic Canon, and my own Constructing the Canon of Early Modern Drama. Salzman’s book is distinctive in a few ways: its focus is relatively modern and deliberately narrow, spanning just under 100 years, and covering the major editorial figures from Alexander Dyce to R. B. McKerrow; it is concerned less with any particular canonical genre (e.g. drama) or author (e.g. Shakespeare) and more with the editorial practices, broadly considered, that underlie the canon-making process; and it contextualizes the work its key figures did editing early modern literature in relation to their other editorial labours.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.014 |
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".