<i>Books and Bookmen in Early Modern Britain: Essays Presented to James P. Carley</i> . Ed. by <scp>James Willoughby</scp> and <scp>Jeremy Catto</scp> <i>Books and Bookmen in Early Modern Britain: Essays Presented to James P. Carley</i> . Ed. by WilloughbyJames and CattoJeremy. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval studies. 2018. 449 pp. CAN$95. <scp>isbn</scp> 978 0 88844 830 9.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If you look at the wikipedia article about James Carley, you will find out very little about his achievements. To be sure, it mentions Glastonbury Abbey, John Leland, sixteenth-century book culture, Lambeth Palace Library, and Arthurian legends, as well as Lawrence Durrell. That seriously understates the extent of his contribution to sixteenth-century history, and the history of English libraries. His multiple studies of the books of Henry Viii, crowned (but not ending) with his great volume for the Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues in 2000, his interest in John Bale and in the dispersal of English libraries in the sixteenth century, and his continuing investigations into the library of Richard Bancroft, all speak to a tradition inherited from M. R. James, Neil Ker, and Andrew Watson. This collection of essays in his honour also speaks to his warm-hearted and generous presence in Canada and England alike, and will be as widely welcomed for its content as for its honorand.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".