Bibliographic record
Abstract
The one thing most scholars know about Thomas Heywood is his claim, included in his 1633 preface to The English Traveller , to have had ‘an entire hand, or at the least a maine finger’ in 220 plays. We don’t know if this is true, but it seems probable, given the length of Heywood’s career (he started writing in the 1590s and continued until his death in 1641), his productivity in many genres and his apparent penchant for collaboration. He was, for example, a probable collaborator in The Book of Sir Thomas More (1592–3) and a certain collaborator in plays such as The Witch of Edmonton (1621). A man of modest origins, Heywood was the son of a country parson, and his studies at Cambridge were cut short when his father died in 1593. Settling in London, he spent most of the rest of his life in the city, becoming in every way a man of London and of the London theatre world. While the majority of Heywood’s writing was done for the theatre, he also wrote a number of works of poetry, including the early ‘Oenone and Paris’ (1594), a narrative poem resembling Shakespeare’s ‘Venus and Adonis’, and Troia Britannica (1609), a history of the world to the present; a defence of the theatre entitled An Apology for Actors (1607); two collections of prose stories about women, Gunaikeion (1624) and Nine the Most Worthy Women of the World (1640); and a rambling philosophical compendium entitled The Hierarchy of the Blessed Angels (1635). In the 1590s Heywood was associated with the theatrical enterprises of Philip Henslowe and wrote plays for the Lord Admiral’s Men at the Rose. In 1599 the Earl of Derby’s Men staged his two-part play, Edward IV , and soon thereafter he joined the Earl of Worcester’s Company, which metamorphosed into the Queen Anne’s Men after King James ascended the English throne in 1603. With the Queen’s Men, playing primarily at the Red Bull theatre in Clerkenwell, Heywood had a long and fruitful relationship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.024 |
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".