Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay charts the fortunes of the longest and most significant poem by John Fletcher (1579–1625), an author chiefly remembered for his work as a collaborative playwright. Despite its unique status in the Fletcher canon, the poem has never received sustained critical attention and, as this essay argues, scholars have relied for centuries on a corrupt and mutilated text. The poem was first published in the 1647 Beaumont and Fletcher Folio under the title “Upon an Honest Man’s Fortune” as a paratext to the play The Honest Man’s Fortune (1613). Using evidence from seven early manuscript witnesses, this essay argues that the publisher Humphrey Moseley not only fabricated this title and dramatic connection but also omitted lines from the poem to fit it within the available print space. Reintroducing critics to Fletcher’s poem, this essay provides a new text, edited from a manuscript with a connection to Fletcher himself and containing twenty-three hitherto unpublished lines, and proposes the adoption of a new title: “Against Astrologers.” Considered on its own terms, “Against Astrologers” can be appreciated as a devotional work that expands our understanding of Fletcher’s literary career and the personal networks that influenced his writing.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".