Huynh, David François, project lead. SIMILE Widgets: Timeline. Version 2.3. App
Bibliographic record
Abstract
comptes-rendus sur les ressources numériques 333 bibliography struggles to accommodate the more oblique, yet nonetheless valid, connections to Shakespeare, eliding appropriative work that is not explicit in its deference to a work or the author.The result is an inconsistency whereby scholars may recognize the Shakespearean quality of a work, but the database is unable to accommodate the text under discussion.A search for Derek Walcott, for example, yields twenty-four critical works on Shakespeare's influence on Walcott, yet fails to include the poet's own work, such as "The Branch of the Blue Nile, " a poem that is a direct adaptation of Antony and Cleopatra.Presumably, the question of inclusion-particularly the issue of who gets to decide-is difficult, but nonetheless, it makes the process of finding material that exists outside of traditional definitions of Shakespeare production more challenging.The WSB is not open access; both institutional and individual subscriptions are available.Institutional access facilitates a linking system that allows users to connect directly from the WSB to their library's database of fulltext essays, or shelf listings for books.Individual access to the WSB costs (at the time of writing) $88 per annum, and does not offer direct access to the archived texts.Overall, the World Shakespeare Bibliography is an invaluable resource for scholars of Shakespeare, but there is undoubtedly an emphasis on professional communities, both through its archived material and its intended users.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.716 | 0.626 |
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".