Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not all utopias are truly imaginative, yet minor ones can be instructive or amusing. This article explores the hierarchy-obsessed French Antangil as well as some minor English ones so as to deduce further what so entranced so many about Nowhere’s possibilities. None is as radical as Utopia itself—nor as intelligent. They do, however, show the uses to which a “utopia” can be put. After a glance at Antangil this article moves to a letter from the king of Utopia and thence to Edward Howard’s royalist drama Six Days in a New Utopia (1671), an interesting failure on stage. After a few glances at other utopias the article ends with a grimly amusing avian debate concerning the desire of foreign (French) canaries to settle in Utopia (England), where they will be safe from a persecutory eagle (Louis XIV). Utopia is “nowhere,” but it is a useful nowhere. Les utopies ne sont pas toutes véritablement originales, toutefois certaines peuvent être instructives et amusantes. Cette étude explore l’Antangil, un ouvrage français obsédé par la hiérarchie, ainsi qu’un certain nombre d’ouvrages mineurs anglais, dans le but de mieux comprendre ce qui a séduit tant de lecteurs dans les possibilités d’un « Nulle part ». Aucune de ces oeuvres n’est aussi radicale que l’Utopie de More elle-même, ni aussi intelligente. Elles montrent cependant quelle peut être la fonction de telles utopies. Cette étude, après avoir considéré l’Antangil, se penche sur une lettre du roi d’Utopia, et sur le drame royaliste Six Days in a New Utopia d’Edward Howard (1671) ayant eu curieusement peu de succès sur scène. Après avoir survolé quelques autres textes similaires, on termine notre examen avec un amusant débat aviaire traitant du désir de canaris étrangers (français) de s’installer en Utopie (Angleterre), où ils seront à l’abris de la persécution d’un certain aigle (Louis XIV). On y constate qu’Utopie est un « nulle part », mais un « nulle part » utile.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.005 |
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".