MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2013278195 · doi:10.1353/vpr.0.0042

Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present (review)

2008· article· en· W2013278195 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian periodicals review · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReading (process)Context (archaeology)ClubHistoryLiteratureHollywoodMultitudeArtVisual artsArt historyPhilosophyLawLinguisticsMedicinePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present Andrea Broomfield (bio) Janet Badia and Jennifer Phegley, eds., Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2005), pp. x + 297, $60 cloth. Janet Badia and Jennifer Phegley's Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present, starts with a fundamental question: what is it about images of reading women that continue to hold people's attention? For those interested in this question, Reading Women offers provocative, helpful answers. Influenced by Kate Flint's seminal The Woman Reader, 1837–1914, Badia and Phegley explore the woman reader in a wider historical context than do many previous studies on this topic. They open their collection in 1840s England, with Antonia Losano's "Reading Women/Reading Pictures: Textual and Visual Reading in Charlotte Bronte's Fiction and Nineteenth-Century Painting" and close in the present-day United States with Mary R. Lamb's "The 'Talking Life' of Books: Women Readers in Oprah's Book Club." Badia and Phegley also consider the woman reader in some surprisingly unexpected contexts—not only Oprah's televised book club, but also women reading in the British Library, women readers portrayed in Hollywood film, and even women readers as they are being used to market a current line of stationary. By considering such a multitude of contexts, Badia and Phegley fulfill their objective of enriching scholarly conversations about readers in history that Flint helped initiate. Indeed, Flint's helpful Afterword to this collection suggests future possible directions for scholarly inquiry in this discipline. [End Page 288] Two essays stand out as particularly noteworthy for VPR readers: Phegley's "Images of Women Readers in Victorian Family Literary Magazines," and Ruth Hoberman's "Depictions of Women in the British Museum Reading Room, 1875–1929." Phegley focuses on Braddon's editorship of Belgravia and Thackeray's editorship of Cornhill. Although more conservative in its approach to the woman reader than Belgravia, Cornhill did champion women's intellectual curiosity and argued that reading were quality literature could make women better citizens, wives, and mothers. Belgravia, predictably, put fewer conditions on women's reading. Whether "quality" or "sensation," Belgravia believed that women were capable of determining what and how to read, and more importantly, that women had every right to read for themselves—not only for the benefit of others. Phegley's analysis of Belgravia is particularly well done: she calls attention to under-explored portions of the magazine that will interest VPR readers, particularly as those portions concern Belgravia's ongoing debate about women's reading. Hoberman concentrates on women who used the British Museum reading room from the 1880s through the 1920s, with particular attention given to Eleanor Marx, Beatrice Potter, Dorothy Richardson, and Virginia Woolf. Women using the reading room from the 1880s to 1907, Hoberman convincingly argues, were delighted with its resources, often ignoring the "Ladies Only" section and sitting at whatever desk they chose—to the consternation, bemusement, and frustration of male patrons. However, from 1907, when the reading room was remodeled, up to the 1920s, women no longer viewed the reading room as a liberating space of vast resources; instead, they alluded to it in their writing as a male space that oppressed the women working there. The reasons are complex, and Hoberman covers several, with one reason concerning its decoration. When patrons returned to the room after its remodeling in 1907, they were now greeted with a ring of men's names inscribed in the moldings just beneath the dome. The reading room's accumulated cultural weight turned women who used it into mere thoughts in the dome's "huge bald forehead which is so splendidly encircled by a band of famous names," as Woolf writes in A Room of Her Own. Insightful essays on authors born after Woolf, such as Zora Neale Hurston and Ann Petry, and on many authors born before her, including Harriet Beecher Stowe and Louisa May Alcott, round out this collection. Badia and Phegley have included essays that touch directly on important historical themes and which address these...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,206
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,222 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle