“Character Resolved into Clay”: The Toby Jug, Eighteenth-Century English Ceramics, and the Rise of Consumer Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why was the Toby jug so popular? And why is this novelty item still so popular? How was this porcelain drinking vessel made, and how was this making a significant accomplishment for English potteries? The Toby jug can reveal much about how people are figured as individuals and as consumers. First, this essay sum marizes the rise of the English ceramic tradi tion, reviewing the technologies that made possible the manufacture of items like the Toby jug. Second, the essay ex plores the Toby jug as a metaphor for human sub jec tivity, with emphasis on a British national subject. The essay argues that the Toby jug is an especially power ful emblem for a consumer culture marked by deep paradoxes. Next, the jug is considered in comparison to the rise of idio syncratic characters like Laurence Sterne’s Uncle Toby, from whom it might seem to take its name. The essay concludes with a reflection on Martin Heidegger’s essay on the jug. This essay models the application of new mater ialist methodologies in an attempt to extend the concerns of material culture practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".