Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing a book is a long and humbling journey, one nearly impossible to complete alone.As I near harbour, I find myself in the debt of many.I have been fortunate to count Jane Tylus as a mentor and friend; her generosity in offering advice, lending a supportive ear, reading drafts, and lifting me up in myriad ways has been unflagging.Virginia Cox first encouraged me to see where my curiosity about Costa might lead; she has been a reliable touchstone as my research takes shape.My interest in Margherita Costa originates in a chance conversation with Sara Díaz at a conference reception a decade ago about whether any early modern Italian women wrote comedies.The question led us to translate and edit Costa's Buffoons together.The ideas in this book and my sense of Costa as a writer and performer are born of that collaboration; Sara's sharp and thoughtful approach to Costa's works permeates this study.This book has benefited from a team of readers.Anna Wainwright and Shannon McHugh have read the book nearly in its entirety, offering astute feedback and comradery along the way.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.304 | 0.227 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".