Bibliographic record
Abstract
This monograph takes on the important task of securing a wider audience for one of the most extraordinary documents of the Enlightenment. An Account of the Fair Intellectual Club (1720) describes a small, secret club of teenage women who came together in Edinburgh for the purpose of mutual self-improvement.−When word of their secret was about to leak, they took the proactive step of publishing this account of their venture. Their document is a milestone in the history of our modern notions of “intellectual” work and of the types of associations–such as clubs–that enabled it. Formed in the first quarter of the eighteenth This monograph takes on the important task of securing a wider audience for one of the most extraordinary documents of the Enlightenment. An Account of the Fair Intellectual Club (1720) describes a small, secret club of teenage women who came together in Edinburgh for the purpose of mutual self-improvement.−When word of their secret was about to leak, they took the proactive step of publishing this account of their venture. Their document is a milestone in the history of our modern notions of “intellectual” work and of the types of associations–such as clubs–that enabled it. Formed in the first quarter of the eighteenth
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".