Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changing Plays, 2015), co-edited collections (Early Modern Studies after the Digital Turn, 2016 and Early British Drama in Manu script, 2019), and numerous articles speak to her interest in the reception of early modern drama from its initial manu script circulation to digital representations today.early modern CommonPlaCe books and miscellanies, those important artifacts of literary and textual culture, reflect historical tastes, attitudes, and learning practices. 1 This chapter uses the broad definition of commonplace book as a volume consisting primarily of commonplaces, that is, "well-phrased sayings that express a pearl of wisdom." 2 For centuries, readers copied passages into their notebooks: some, commonplace books, filled primarily with textual excerpts and commonplaces; others, miscellanies, filled with receipts (recipes), poems, and other textual bits and bobs.As Eric Rasmussen and Ian H. De Jong explain, "Commonplace books are rich with historical evidence, shedding light on individual readers' habits * I'd like to thank Tara Lyons and Constance Crompton for their thoughtful suggestions on this chapter.Thanks also to John Heggelund, Bethany Radcliff, and the students in Texas A&M ENGL303 (Spring
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".