Renaissance Historicism: Selections from English Literary Renaissance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the current catchy phrases in Renaissance literary criticism is one called "The New Historicism".While this shares some of the techniques and vocabulary of other recent schools (deconstruction, reader response, semiotics), and while it can represent a wide ideological spectrum ranging from American liberalism to British Marxism, it is important to recognize the New Historicism as a movement (it is not exactly a school) separate from those from which its adherents occasionally borrow.If there is a central tenet of New Historicist critics, it is that literary criticism cannot divorce the text from its social and political context: that criticism, in other words, must be a historical as well as a literary exercise.Accordingly, new historicist critics, some of the best of whom are represented in the volume under review, borrow from critics and philosophers (ranging from Marx to Gadamer to Foucault), from a number of political and cultural historians of the early modern period, such as Christopher Hill and Keith Thomas, and from cultural anthropologists including
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it