The Case of the Nocturnal Amanuenses: New Evidence in the <i>Wat Tyler</i> Affair
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In early 1817 the “Ultra-royalist” Poet Laureate of England, Robert Southey, opened a newspaper and saw an advertisement for a radical play he had written in his “Ultra-jacobin” youth back in late 1794 (the phrases are William Hazlitt’s). “By whose roguery it has got to the press I do not know,” Southey told John Murray. Southey directed his lawyers to initiate a suit in the Court of Chancery requesting an injunction against the publishers on the grounds that “the author has a property in an unpublished work.” But because he had not established his property in the work, the injunction was denied. Furthermore, the Lord Chancellor indicated that his decision was informed by the precedent “that a person cannot recover in damages for a work which is, in its nature calculated to do injury to the public.” The absence of copyright then produced an artificially rapid tranching down in price, flooding the market with cheap editions of the play, while the high-profile affirmation of the precedent provided a certain degree of legal cover for publishers of radical piracies and paved the way for a mass market in radical print. How the play came to be published, however, has remained a mystery. New evidence reveals much of the roguery by which Wat Tyler got to the press and deepens our understanding of political culture, religious Dissent, and publishing practices during the Romantic era.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it