Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 5 April 1797, Blake signed a certificate attesting to the efficacy of Alexander Tilloch's method for producing forge-proof banknotes. Tilloch's scheme was designed to obviate the human cost of forgery, which was a capital offence. Predicated on a stereotype printing process, Tilloch's method was technically and conceptually analogous to Blake's experiments in illuminated printing. While motivated by different political, economic, and aesthetic ideals, both men used experimental engraving/etching technologies to challenge systemic repression. This essay examines an overlooked context for Blake's poetic responses to repression, documents a previously unrecorded manuscript certificate dated 5 April 1797 containing Blake's signature, as well as two hitherto unrecorded instances of Blake's name being published in connection with Tilloch's 1797 scheme, and suggests another context for the ‘black net’ that Blake describes smothering London in 1800. The trial records show that those convicted of banknote forgery had access to engraving equipment. As an engraver with a copperplate rolling press, Blake would have come under suspicion when large quantities of counterfeit notes were discovered in 1797, 1800, and 1818.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".