Bibliographic record
Abstract
Political Writings, Margaret Cavendish (Susan James, ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. xxxix, 298. The publication of Margaret Cavendish's Political Writings is part of a recent effort to make Cavendish's seventeenth-century works more accessible to students and scholars alike. Political Writings is a particularly significant addition to this effort in that it contains two of Cavendish's most explicitly political texts, A Description of a New World called the Blazing World (1666), Cavendish's best-known endeavour in utopian fiction, along with the first modern edition of Orations of Divers Sorts (1662). Combined with a concise introduction by the volume's editor, philosopher Susan James, who expertly navigates Cavendish's many influences and references—ancient and modern—the book effectively puts Cavendish on the map as a political thinker. Although the most published Englishwoman of her period, and now the subject of a veritable growth industry in the fields of early modern literary and gender history, Margaret Cavendish has received virtually no attention in the field of political thought. With her inclusion in the Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought series, there is hope that Cavendish will now be treated and analyzed, not just as the prolific writer of drama, poetry and natural philosophy that she was, but as an incisive thinker who engaged with, and published on, the most vital political questions facing Civil War and Restoration England.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.019 |
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".