Coolahan, Marie-Louise. The Reception & Circulation of Early Modern Women’s Writing, 1550–1700
Bibliographic record
Abstract
comptes rendus sur les ressources numériques 169 of Cavendish's poetry and its, at times, innovative and provocative weirdness.What would it mean for all change to derive from the kind of sexual processes depicted in "Motion Makes Atoms a Bawd for Figure "?Yet the meticulous textual notes included with this poem and all of the poems in the edition also allow readers to see the openness and instability-i.e., change-inherent in the texts themselves.The notes depict all substantial variants between the different editions, which allows readers to compare and contrast different versions of the poems, and sometimes these differences are quite meaningful, as in "Motion Makes Atoms" where the personified figures are referred to with different gendered pronouns in the 1653 and 1664 editions.Blake's choice of best-text editing accompanied by complete textual notes creates Cavendish's poems as, on the one hand, works of art, and, on the other, historically contingent material texts.Blake's choice, therefore, treats Cavendish's poetry in the same way that previous generations of editors treated the great English poets such as Donne, Shakespeare, or Milton.The best-text edition by Blake and her collaborators is important because it gives "Cavendish, as a woman writer, a chance to have the same kind of edition, namely a conflated edition, that her male contemporaries received in the centuries where her book sat largely ignored." How can we "un-edit" if we never edited?Blake's deliberately anachronistic choice reflects Cavendish's own sense that her writing might only find its audience in the future.This edition helps fulfill Cavendish's desire and prediction.We should, as Blake urges, "Consider reading Margaret Cavendish's Poetry."
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".