<i>Tudor Books and Readers: Materiality and the Construction of Meaning</i> . Ed. by J <scp>ohn</scp> N. K <scp>ing</scp> . <i>Tudor Books and Readers: Materiality and the Construction of Meaning</i> . Ed. by KingJohn N.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010. xvii + 270 pp. + 13 figures. £55. <scp>isbn</scp> 978 0 521 51494 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of its trendy title this is a substantial collection of essays by a group of prominent scholars. There are no weak contributions and the volume has a coherence apart from that imposed by its chronological span. This may relate to the fact that it grows out of a thematically planned conference, participants carefully chosen, held at the Henry E. Huntington Library in 2006. Drawing on her many years of research on the topic Lotte Hellinga gives a fine summary of book production in the early period and she observes, inter alia, that if he had lived longer Richard III might well have exploited the resources the printing press had to offer in the manner that his successors did so effectively. Douglas A. Brookes points out that Henry VII made considerable use of his putative descent from King Arthur to bolster his right to the throne and that printing was part of the campaign. During the reign of his younger son the office of King's Printer was closely linked with royal policy in general. There is a parallel, so Brookes maintains, to our own ‘technological moment when presidential candidates rely heavily on websites to promote their positions and raise money for their campaigns, and thousands of bloggers around the world weigh in on events within moments of their becoming known’.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.012 |
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".