Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recentering Blake's Marginalia JASON SNART O ver the past two decades, scholarship on William Blake has turned decidedly toward issues of materiality and textuality.Online projects such as the William Blake Archive and the Blake Digital Text Project, as well as the publication of Blake's major illuminated works by the William Blake Trust and Princeton University Press, have made Blake's work available in forms that capture a great deal more of both the visual and verbal dimensions of the originals than any typeset version could do.The same cannot be said, however, for William Blake's marginalia, which are chiefly available in typeset editions such as David Erdman's Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake (1988) or Sir Geoffrey Keynes's Complete Writings of William Blake (1966).Scholars wishing to get a sense of the visual and verbal dimensions of Blake's marginalia must study the originals or photographs of them.Although facsimiles of Blake's annotated copies of John Caspar Lavater's Aphorisms on Man (1788) and Richard Watson's An Apologyfor the Bible (1797) have been produced by R. J. Shroyer and G. Ingli James, respectively, neither is of good quality.'Because of the limitations of the typeset format, issues of materiality and textuality-the look of the text on the page, now so important in Blake studies generally-have not emerged in relation to Blake's annotations.There is a vicious circle something like: Blake's marginalia are assumed to be unimportant and so are not published in facsimile format (that is, the cost of publication is assumed to outweigh any scholarly benefit); the non-facsimile printing of the marginalia submerges issues otherwise central to Blake studies; the marginalia are treated as secondary since there appears to be little of (textual) importance in them; as studied in typeset editions, the marginalia confirm the assumption that they are not of much interest.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".