Elizabethan Publishing and the Makings of Literary Culture. By <scp>Kirk Melnikoff</scp> <i>Elizabethan Publishing and the Makings of Literary Culture</i> . By MelnikoffKirk. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2018. xii + 291 pp. $70. <scp>isbn</scp> 978 1 4875 0223 2.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1570, John Day published the second edition of Thomas sackville and Thomas Norton’s play Gorboduc. The edition has been much discussed by bibliographers and book historians on account of its unprecedented inclusion of a stationer’s preface, ‘The P. to the Reader’, in which Day provides an account of the play’s publication history. Deploying an abbreviation in its title, the paratext alludes to Day’s role as both printer and publisher, but as Laurie E. Maguire has noted, epistles headed ‘From the Printer to the Reader’ typically mean ‘From the Publisher to the Reader’ and use the word ‘printer’ simply to identify the agent who has caused the text to be printed (see ‘The Craft of Printing (1600)’, in A Companion to Shakespeare, ed. by David Scott Kastan (Oxford, 1999), pp. 434–49). I offer this example by way of introduction to Kirk Melnikoff’s Elizabethan Publishing and the Makings of Literary Culture as it highlights both the necessity and difficulty of distinguishing between the different roles played by those involved in the Elizabethan book trade. One of the great achievements of Melnikoff’s book is it does just that, and in so doing reveals the importance, in particular, of the ‘bookselling publisher’ in the making and shaping of literary taste.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".