MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199127884 · doi:10.1093/library/22.3.316

The Flowers in The Muses Garland

2021· article· en· W3199127884 on OpenAlexaff
Peter W. M. Blayney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Library · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrnamentsArtHistoryArt historyVisual artsStyle (visual arts)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A recent publication has laid the groundwork for future studies of printers’ flowers. This paper begins by using the evidence of flowers to show that two seemingly unrelated printed fragments in the Beinecke Library come from a single book. An attempt to identify the printer then reveals the largely unexplored extent to which London printers’ ornaments migrated to Scotland in the 1590s and came back in 1603, and that leads in turn to some new biographical facts about the printer Robert Waldegrave. An appendix looks at some later copies of Robert Granjon’s best-known six-part combinable flower, which have too often been mistaken for the originals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.182
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LibrarySame topicRenaissance Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207