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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a book that examines how writing is transformed for print, and that emphasises the sociable and collaborative nature of the process, an acknowledgements section presents an opportunity to refl ect upon the many people and institutions that have supported my research.I am supremely fortunate to work in the English Department at Simon Fraser University, with an exceptional community of scholars working in the fi elds of print culture and book history.I have the incredible good fortune to be colleagues with Betty Schellenberg, one of the leading scholars of eighteenth-century manuscript culture, whose research, happily enough for me, ends just before the Romantic period.We often half-jokingly discussed issuing our books in two parts, and it is my fondest hope that this book may be found to be a worthy follower to her Literary Coteries and the Making of Modern Print Culture 1740-1790.I am also grateful to Colette Colligan, who has provided me with conceptual and organisational suggestions, ongoing moral support, and more working titles than I care to recall.Leith
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.001 |
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 it