Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alan Argent took it upon himself to compile the third catalogue of the Richard Baxter treatises and the final product is an incredibly comprehensive guide that attempts to address the shortcomings of the two earlier catalogues (1856-63 and 1959).The catalogue is prefaced by N. H. Keeble, who provides some basic biographical details on Baxter; Keeble also explains that Baxter was a prolific writer who "moved between print and manuscript with no sense of either impropriety or generic difference" (vi).In prefacing his catalogue, Argent explains that the collection of folios, quartos, and "countless" small treatises made it very difficult to establish a system of order by which to group the twenty-one volumes of treatises, many of which were bound to other treatises without any explanation.In addition to the notes, which trace the provenance of the Baxter treatises, Argent adds clarity to his catalogue with the editorial conventions section, as well as a bibliography, index of persons, and index of published works.The critical introduction, while only eight pages, not only informs readers on a variety of historical issues and people, but highlights the incredible breadth of knowledge that Argent presents to readers.On several occasions, Argent points out the value of the catalogue to book historians; of particular interest is Argent's postulation that Thomas's 1959 catalogue may have relied entirely upon Black's earlier catalogue.In fact, Argent believes that Thomas may not even have worked with the Baxter manuscripts themselves.Argent points out that, if this is the case, the Thomas catalogue appropriates the errors of Black's earlier catalogue, as well as additional errors of its own, hence the need for a more comprehensive version.The introduction discusses an array of topics from the treatises' provenance-including their physical appearance, i.e., watermarks and the colour, size, and quality of paper-to the presence of unidentified handwritten annotations and the difficulty of determining authorship for some of the writing included with the treatises.The introduction also touches upon Baxter's vast network and his familiarity with theological and philosophical texts, ranging from highly placed Church of England officials to political
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.081 |
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".