<i>Superior in his Profession: Essays in Memory of Harold Love</i> . Ed. by M <scp>eredith</scp> S <scp>herlock</scp> , B <scp>rian</scp> M <scp>c</scp> M <scp>ullin</scp> and W <scp>allace</scp> K <scp>irsop</scp> <i>Superior in his Profession: Essays in Memory of Harold Love</i> . Ed. by SherlockMeredith, McMullinBrian and KirsopWallace, special issue of <i>Script & Print: Bulletin of the Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand</i> , 33 (2009). 268 pp. AUD $45.00. <scp>issn</scp> 1834 9013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few bibliographers deserved a festschrift more than Harold Love, and it is sad that this excellent volume has to be ‘in memoriam’. I met Harold Love only once, but was enthralled by his energy and the immense range of his knowledge of books, manuscripts, and the bibliographical world in general, and like everyone I owe him the debt incurred by his wonderful Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (1993). This collection begins not with the expected personal memoir — that comes later — but with the bibliography of his writings that demonstrates his range: seventeenth-century poetry and drama in profusion, but also Australian colonial theatre and opera, editorial principles and technique, and at least one libretto. Almost every article begins with a reminiscence of Harold and an acknowledgment of the writer's debt to him, whether as student, colleague, or friend. Love by name and Love by nature, as was evident in my one glimpse of him.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".