Volume I Richardson’s Correspondence with Lady Bradshaigh and Lady Echlin, 1748–1753
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richardson to Lady Bradshaigh Saturday 30 July 1748 Printed source: Whitehall Evening-Post: Or, London Intelligencer , No. 386, 30 July – 2 August 1748. First printing: Whitehall Evening-Post: Or, London Intelligencer (1748). July 30, 1748 IF the ingenious Lady, who wrote to a certain Bookseller in London,3 about the 10th of this Month of July, and another Letter a few Days ago, both withoutName orDate; but the Post-mark of the first Letter WARRINGTON; will be pleased to signify to the Person to whom she orders those Letters to be given, how she may be addressed to by Letter; and will have the Goodness to construe as favourably as deserved, and not to the Persons Apprehension of his Suffering in his Interest for pursuing, with the best Intention, the Dictates of his own Judgment;5 all possible Satisfaction shall be endeavoured to be given her in Relation to the Subject she writes upon . Lady Bradshaigh to Richardson Monday 10 October 1748 Printed source: B: IV, 177–82. First printing: Barbauld, Correspondence (1804). October 10, 1748 I am pressed, Sir, by a multitude of your admirers, to plead in behalf of your amiable Clarissa; having too much reason, from hints given in your four volumes, from a certain advertisement, and from your forbearing to write, after promising all endeavours should be used towards satisfying the discontented; from all these, I say, I have but too much reason to apprehend a fatal catastrophe. I have heard that some of your advisers,who delight in horror, (detestablewretches!) insisted upon rapes, ruin, and destruction; others, who feel for the virtuous in distress, (blessings for ever attend them!) pleaded for the contrary. Could you be deaf to these, and comply with those? Is it possible, that he who has the art to please in softness, in the most natural, easy, humorous, and sensible manner, can resolve to give joy only to the ill-natured reader, and heave the compassionate breast with tears for irremediable woes? Tears I would choose to shed for virtue in distress; but still would suffer to flow, in greater abundance, for unexpected turns of happiness, in which, Sir, you excel any other author I ever read! where nature ought to be touched, you make the very soul feel.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.195 | 0.064 |
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".