Amelia Alderson Opie (1769-1853): The Cromer Notebook and the Poetics of Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amelia Opie’s works were well-received by her contemporary audiences, yet few critical studies of her work exist. Shelley King and John B. Pierce’s The Collected Poems of Amelia Alderson Opie is the first scholarly anthology of Opie’s poems. King and Pierce draw upon a variety of sources—archival records, published texts, primary and secondary sources—to represent the cultural and commercial complexities of Opie’s 60 years as a poet.What King and Pierce did not have access to in assembling The Collected Poems is Opie’s Cromer notebook. Housed in the Berg Collection of the New York Public Library, this document contains over 300 pages of dense composition and revision. Opie began the notebook during her stay in Cromer and likely kept it from 1791 to 1807. The notebook consists mainly of drafts of poems, many of which were published. These drafts are earlier, if not the earliest, versions of these poems.Because the notebook spans a significant portion of Opie’s career, it presents a unique opportunity to reconstruct Opie as a writer. Writing research, combining psychology, linguistics, and education, promotes great innovation in re-imagining the compositional processes of authors. I will use this research to help me to understand how Opie cognitively appraised and re-appraised her writing, producing a poetics of revision.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".