MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395090565 · doi:10.1017/9781108953535

Female Printmakers, Printsellers, and Print Publishers in the Eighteenth Century

2024· book· en· W4395090565 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina S. Martinez, Madeleine Viljoen, Paris Amanda Spies-Gans, Heather McPherson, F. Carlo Schmid, Hannah Lyons, Kelsey D. Martin, Rena M. Hoisington, Rita Bernini, Cynthia E. Roman, Sheila O’Connell, Amy Torbert, Cristina S. Martinez, Tim Clayton, Nicholas JS Knowles

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryArtMedia studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ground-breaking contribution that broadens our understanding of the history of prints, this edited volume assembles international senior and rising scholars and showcases an array of exciting new research that reassesses the history of women in the graphic arts c. 1700 to 1830. Sixteen essays present archival findings and insightful analyses that tell compelling stories about women across social classes and nations who persevered against the obstacles of their gender to make vital contributions as creative and skilled graphic artists, astute entrepreneurs and savvy negotiators of copyright law in Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy and the United States. The book is a valuable resource for both students and instructors, offers important new perspectives for print scholars and aims to provide impetus for further research. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207