G. E. Bentley, Jr., <i>The Edwardses of Halifax: The Making and Selling of Beautiful Books in London and Halifax, 1749–1826</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
P. J. M. Marks said in 1998 that “the story of the Edwards family of Halifax is the stuff of a Victorian three volume novel.” G. E. Bentley, Jr., tells that story in The Edwardses of Halifax: The Making and Selling of Beautiful Books in London and Halifax, 1749–1826, though not in three volumes and not quite as dramatically as a novel might. Bentley divides his monograph about this bookselling and book-producing family into four sections: part 1 is about William Edwards, and parts 2-4 are about his sons James, Richard, and Thomas, respectively. Of these four figures, James is the most significant: the chapter devoted to William takes up twenty-four pages and the two sections on Richard and Thomas take up forty-seven pages combined, while Bentley spends over one hundred pages on James’s career. The Edwardses as a bookselling family came to an end with the retirement and then death of Thomas.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
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".