Two ends of the same thread: Reimagining the boundaries of personal and professional labour in eighteenth-century needlework and twenty-first-century crochet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a researcher I have always maintained a firm boundary between my professional work and my personal hobbies. One of my most recent academic projects has traced the development of techniques and styles of needlework pictures and pictorial samplers made by young women in eighteenth-century England, while in my spare time I have increasingly turned to crocheting clothing and toys for friends and family. However, following recent developments in material culture and archival studies, which have encouraged reframing conceptions of authorship and resituating objects within larger networks of connection, it seems foolish to suppose that my work on needlework in the long eighteenth century is unaffected by my investment in crochet (and vice versa). This article aims to initiate discussions around the relationship between personal lives and professional research and seeks to explore how my practice of crochet and my research of textiles from the long eighteenth century are intimately connected.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".