<scp>John Wiltshire</scp>. <i>Frances Burney and the Doctors: Illness Narratives Then and Now</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The largely unprofessionalized medical world of the long eighteenth century, as some scholars have noted, is characterized by a variety of converging tendencies, including an increasing interest in experiences of illness, a widespread lay consumption of medical knowledge, a continued, if tentative, acceptance of women’s medical contributions, and a productive fluidity between the realms of literature and medicine. John Wiltshire’s Frances Burney and the Doctors: Illness Narratives Then and Now provides an excellent contribution to such scholarly discussions through a reading and contextualization of four key medically-themed episodes in the extensive letters and diaries of Frances Burney (1752-1840): the state of George III’s court as the king descended into madness (1788-89); the inoculation for smallpox of Burney’s son (1797); Burney’s harrowing experience of mastectomy (1811); and the decline and death of her husband Alexandre D’Arblay (1818). Expanding on understandings of Burney as a gifted diarist, letter-writer, and novelist, Wiltshire paints Burney as an exceptionally insightful medical observer and as a key progenitor of the modern genre of pathography. The book thus provides important contributions to the field of Burney studies and to the history of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century medicine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.017 |
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".