The Essays of the Literary Society, Read in Montreal during the winter of 1880-81.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addison's design in writing these Essays, was to cultivate a purer taste in literature, by calling the public attention to those ballads, once the delight of all men, but, owing to the artificial spirit of the age, now much overlooked or forgotten.To one other point would I call the attention of the meetiDg, inasmuch as it may be of interest to several of the m* mbers.In speaking of Milton's unequalled powers of imagination, or fancy, Addison again advances the theory first expounded and enunciated by him in the Essay on the Pleasures of the Imagination, but now universally admitted, "Thatthe Pleasures of the Imagination flow from visible objects only, and that the imagination can proceed from, or be exercised with regxrd to thf-se objects only which are before our eyes or have been taken in through the vision ;" or to put it more briefly, that we cannot imagine what is not.The question opens a large field for discussion. And lastly the criticisms on Addison's Essays on Milton have been numerousand not always favourable.They have been adjudged to be "not veiy profound,"" "to be wanting in logical sequence," "to be austentatiously pedantic," but be this as it may : in the opinion of every scholar, of every Christian, and of every Englishman, they are entitled to a high place in the literature of Britain inasmuch as in them we find tli3 first public recognition of the grandeur and beauty of Milton's chiefest work, and of the merit of England's greatest poet.C. J. F.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.006 |
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".