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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
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