"Sigh no more, ladies": marriages of submission in Shakespeare's "The taming of the shrew" and "Much ado about nothing"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the London Magazine has received much attention, but praise and criticism has been focused primarily on the contributions of individuals to this periodical work. This thesis investigates the idea that the London, as well as other periodicals produced during the 1820s, was instrumental in promoting not only literary achievements, but social interpretation. In this sense, the impact of the London cannot be adequately traced to the work of a single contributor or series of contributions. This thesis focuses on the editorships of John Scott and John Taylor, which combined covered the period from January 1820 to December 1824, and also marked the high points of the London's history. For both editors, the two key influences of reform and refinement are selected to examine the London's production. Not only do these categories help to illustrate the London's reflection of the age, but they help demarcate the London from its literary rivals. An examination of editorial style, promotion of literary works, and associations with contributors showed that both Scott and Taylor achieved an integration of reform and refinement. These two key influences when combined with each editor's vision produced a distinct and high quality magazine.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".