<scp>Donald A Beecher</scp> and <scp>Grant Williams</scp> (eds). <i>Henry Chettle, ‘Kind-Heart’s Dream’ and ‘Piers Plainness’: Two Pamphlets from the Elizabethan Book Trade</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Henry Chettle is probably best known to scholars of early modern literature as the author of a Hamlet-esque revenge drama, The Tragedy of Hoffman; as a co-author of a few other extant plays including Patient Grissel and The Death of Robert, Earl of Huntingdon; and as a bit-part-player in the history of Shakespeare’s early career, thanks to his authorship of Kind-Heart’s Dream. In the prefatory epistle to this 1593 pamphlet, Chettle responds to the charge that he is the real author of the Groatsworth of Wit attributed to the late Robert Greene, in which Greene had warned fellow dramatists about a certain ‘upstart Crow’; Chettle denies being anything more than Greene’s editor and transcriber and apologizes to the (unnamed) injured party, having since ‘seen his demeanour no less civil than he excellent in the quality he professes’ (88). It is fair to say that critical discussion of this text has struggled to escape the shadow of Chettle’s illustrious contemporary. Donald A. Beecher and Grant Williams’ edition brings Kind-Heart’s Dream together with Chettle’s 1595 pamphlet, Piers Plainness’s Seven-Years Prenticeship. Although the editors inevitably make reference to the Groatsworth and its aftermath, their focus is very much on Chettle’s two pamphlets in their own right and particularly on their status as products of—and reflections upon—early modern print culture.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.039 |
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".