Feriby's “Lament for Richard II” and the English Literary History ca. 1400
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract William Feriby was an historic actor: Richard II's secretary between the “Revenge Parliament” of 1397–98 and the deposition of the king in September 1399; subsequently, a contributor to the deposition proceedings; and, finally, a rebel against Henry IV in January 1400. Feriby was also a literary figure, the author of an historical “Lament for Richard II,” amongst other things, written in a highly mannered style of a sort to indicate an interest on Feriby's part in the purely literary: imagination and form. Though Feriby's prose style is distinctive, he was not the only historic-historiographical figure who manifested an interest in the strictly literary at the same moment, ca. 1400. The writings of Adam Usk, Thomas Favent, the Historia vitae author, and Thomas Brinton—even the deposition proceedings and the documentary record of them (the “Record and Process”)—are comparably (though differently) literary. The relations between Ricardian history and literature can be reconceived, dialectically, by light of such evidence: the literature is historical and historic, but, also, the history itself and historiography are literary.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".