MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184539820 · doi:10.1353/hlq.2021.0000

Women, Book History, and the Long Eighteenth Century: Taking Stock, Moving Forward

2021· article· en· W3184539820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Betty A. Schellenberg, Michelle Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueHuntington Library Quarterly · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryStock (firearms)Cultural historyEconomic historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women, Book History, and the Long Eighteenth Century:Taking Stock, Moving Forward Betty A. Schellenberg and Michelle Levy this special issue of the Huntington Library Quarterly aims to present new knowledge about the cultural, historical, and economic significance of female labor in manuscript and print production and circulation throughout the long eighteenth century. The interdisciplinary field of book history has at times been narrowly understood to refer only to print production of the codex form in the era of movable type, along with its supporting technologies and social contexts. In keeping with more recent approaches, we take book history's area of inquiry to encompass textual artifacts in their broadest material and historical manifestations, and in every aspect of their production, circulation, and reception. More specifically, it is our objective to move the field of book history forward by taking an inclusive approach to modes of textual production and by exploring new theoretical models and methods, especially those enabled by digital tools. As a whole, this volume begins to represent the extremely diverse range of projects and approaches currently being pursued by individual researchers. It is our hope that the dialogue initiated here can provide a model for and inspire the creation of further research exchanges and networks. As scholars, the contributors to this volume are of course familiar with the important shifts in the canon from the time, forty years ago, when few women were included in the anthologies used in North American and European classrooms. Nevertheless, we also recognize that women writers still are not granted a proportionate share of research or teaching focus and that the advent of digital media [End Page 1] has not resulted in the canon-busting that many feminist literary scholars had hoped for, as the cost of creating and maintaining large digital projects tends to privilege the familiar and the mainstream. Furthermore, many digital resources continue to focus on women as authors of printed books, which elides their engagement with manuscript forms and in periodicals. And although Leslie Howsam noted twenty years ago that "women can be identified at every node of the cycle [of print production and reception] and at all periods in history,"1 their contribution to bookmaking and the book trades for much of the period we consider has been almost entirely overlooked, underestimated, or ignored. In other words, much of the scholarship on women in communications media has not penetrated into what we might call mainstream or traditional book history and as a result remains fragmentary and diffuse. For example, only one chapter of forty-nine in the magisterial Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, 1695–1830 (2009) addresses women's contributions for this period. In "Women and Print: Readers, Writers and the Market," Isobel Grundy asks, "What difference did women make to the book trade during the long eighteenth century?"2 She reaches the telling conclusion that we know very little in answer to that question. One of the purposes of our special issue is to take stock of the scholarship that exists in order to bridge what has been done previously with what can and must be done now. In this respect, we acknowledge our indebtedness to those who have begun this work, including Maureen Bell, Isobel Grundy, Leslie Howsam, Paula McDowell, and Kathryn Shevelow, to name only a few. The research projects we are variously involved in seek to develop answers to Grundy's question and to similar queries about writing and reading; by working together, we enhance our potential to advance the field. The introduction, essays, and responses included in this special issue arise out of a two-part symposium begun in Vancouver, British Columbia, in August 2018 and continued at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., in March 2019. This first-ever international meeting of experts working to unearth and communicate the stories of women's involvement in creating manuscript and print literature in the long eighteenth century (that is, from the final decades of the seventeenth century to the early nineteenth) brought together scholars, librarians, and archivists from Europe and North America. In those initial meetings and over the ensuing months, we have thought collectively about how we can...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuntington Library QuarterlySame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207