Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It has been argued that Shakespeare ‘moulded’ translations of Latin and Greek poetry for inclusion in John Gerard’s Herball, or Generall Historie of Plantes (1597). These extracts do the work of descriptive botany. I employ this claim for Shakespeare’s authorship as a springboard for reviewing the enduring linkage of Shakespeare’s and Gerard’s names. Why do scholars turn to Gerard’s English herbal (and not others) for information about Shakespeare’s literary representations of plants? Why are coffee table and art books about Shakespeare (or Shakespearean) gardens so often illustrated with reproductions of woodcuts excerpted from Gerard’s Herball? What measure and kind of authority does Shakespeare lend to Gerard, and does Shakespeare borrow from Gerard? I suggest we also think these questions through Shakespeare’s representations of plants and the use of these representations as science in modern institutions like Shakespeare Gardens.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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".