Bibliographic record
Abstract
ed. Fiona Ritchie and Peter Sabor, Shakespeare in the Eighteenth Century, Reviewed by Nicholas Hudson Sara Salih, Representing Mixed Race in Jamaica and England from the Abolition Era to the Present, Reviewed by Nicole N. Aljoe ed. Marius Warholm et Knut Ove Eliassen, Dévier et divertir: Littérature et pensée de xviii e siècle, Reviewed by Pamela Cheek Deborah Needleman Armintor, The Little Everyman: Stature and Masculinity in Eighteenth-Century English Literature, Reviewed by Cameron McFarlane Aparna Gollapudi, Moral Reform in Comedy and Culture, 1696–1747, Reviewed by Rachel Carnell Laura Linker, Dangerous Women, Libertine Epicures, and the Rise of Sensibility, 1670–1730, Reviewed by Rachel Carnell Jennifer Tsien, The Bad Taste of Others: Judging Literary Value in Eighteenth-Century France, Critique littéraire par Baldine Saint Girons éd. Christina Ionescu, Book Illustration in the Long Eighteenth Century: Reconfiguring the Visual Periphery of the Text, Critique littéraire par Christophe Martin éd. Marc Hersant, Marie-Paule Pilorge, Catherine Ramond et François Raviez, Histoire, histoires: Nouvelles approches de Saint-Simon et des récits des xvii e –xviii e siècles, Critique littéraire par Guy Rooryck Tobias Smollett, ed. Frank Felsenstein, Travels through France and Italy, Reviewed by Terence N. Bowers Claire Gallien, L’Orient anglais: Connaissances et fictions au xviii e siècle, Critique littéraire par Florence D’Souza
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".