<i>Corpus des notes marginales de Voltaire</i> , Vol. 9: <i>Spallanzini–Zeno</i> . Ed. by <scp>Natalia Elaguina</scp> , with notes by <scp>John Renwick</scp> , <scp>Gillian Pink</scp> , and others <i>Corpus des notes marginales de Voltaire</i> , Vol. <i>9: Spallanzini-Zeno.</i> Ed. by ElaguinaNatalia, with notes by <scp>John Renwick, Gillian Pink</scp> , and others. (Les ffiuvres complétes de Voltaire, 144.) Oxford: Voltaire Foundation. 2018. 2 vols. lii + 750 pp. £140. <scp>isbn</scp> 978 0 7294 0889 9.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the penultimate volume of a monumental scholarly edition that began in Oxford fifty years ago—a great achievement for the founding editor, the late Theodore Besterman, and all his successors in the Voltaire Foundation. Assuming that the final volume appears as intended, the publication of Voltaire’s notes in books will also represent a triumph of international academic collaboration. The complete works at first excluded the marginalia, which had been taken on by a group of scholars at what is now the Russian National Library in St Petersburg. Publication began in Berlin, but when the East German publishing arrangements collapsed, the Foundation stepped in. They had the first five volumes reprinted as part of their own edition and saw to it that the project continued, coordinating teams of native Russian-, French-, and English-speaking experts to produce four more volumes and complete the alphabetical series at Zeno. Volume 10 will cover a separate set of books and manuscripts from outside Voltaire’s personal library, works that he marked or annotated not for himself but for acquaintances or correspondents and therefore annotated differently. It is also expected now to include a ‘retrospective’ essay about Voltaire as a reader but, as far as I can make out, not anything resembling a comprehensive index.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.041 |
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".