MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4230413303 · doi:10.2979/vic.2007.49.2.367

<i>Graham R.: Rosamund Marriott Watson, Woman of Letters</i>, by Linda K. Hughes

2007· article· en· W4230413303 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane de Gay

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWatsonArtComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Graham R.: Rosamund Marriott Watson, Woman of Letters Jane de Gay (bio) Graham R.: Rosamund Marriott Watson, Woman of Letters, by Linda K. Hughes; pp. xxv + 397. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2005, $46.95. Linda K. Hughes's work on Graham R. Tomson began with a literary treasure hunt. Hughes spotted a tantalizing glimpse of an obscure poet in the pages of the Universal Review, but further enquiries revealed that this poet had since attracted no more than passing comments from literary critics. From these slender leads Hughes has built a compelling and readable biography of an intriguing woman and unfairly neglected writer. Hughes traces her subject's life through four phases, each initiated by a change in name and a sloughing-off of a previous self. The protagonist was born Rose Ball in 1860, becoming Mrs G. F. Armytage at the age of 19 at the start of a short-lived marriage which culminated in (and according to Hughes, may have been terminated by) the publication of her first poetry collection, Tares, in 1884. On eloping with Arthur Tomson in 1886, she took on the name Graham R. Tomson, giving birth to her best-known literary persona and entering into a Bohemian literary society in London to begin a career as a poet, journalist, editor of Sylvia's Journal and Art Weekly, translator, critic, and story-writer. On leaving Tomson for H. B. Marriott Watson in 1894, she became Rosamund Marriott Watson, taking her partner's name though they never married. As Hughes shows, the move ended her career: her second elopement created a scandal and the reading public were confused by the change of name. This story illuminates the roles of women in the nineteenth century and the tensions between work and family life, as well as public and private identities. The first elopement and divorce facilitated Graham R.'s career as she cast off the roles of wife and mother (exiting from the lives of her two daughters seemingly forever), and made her way in the literary world. Her life with Tomson was apparently a marriage of equals, where each was mutually supportive of the other's career. Her use of a male pseudonym, derived from that of her partner (like George Eliot) helped her establish herself in a masculine world—though Hughes narrates a telling anecdote about Graham R.'s first champion, Andrew Lang. Lang published her work, praised it to others, and paid her the dubious compliment of plagiarising her, but then shifted to a more paternalistic attitude when he found that "Graham" was a woman. While her career took off with her rejection of domesticity by fleeing with Tomson, its decline was marked by an era of "enforced conventionality" (241) in domesticity and happy motherhood with Dick, the only child she never left behind. Hughes draws attention to the hypocrisy of the supposedly liberal bohemian [End Page 367] set of the fin de siècle, as the newly-named Rosamund Marriott Watson was shunned by her former acquaintances, including J. M. Barrie and W. B. Yeats. This rejection also offers an insight to the fragility of literary posterity, as Barrie, Yeats, and her friend Elizabeth Sharp hid Graham R. from literary historians by editing her out of their memoirs. Such elimination of evidence makes the subject difficult to trace: as Hughes notes, no diaries or family papers survive, partly because her ex-lovers excised records of her after her departure. Not surprisingly, the "Graham R." phase is the one best represented in this volume. Hughes draws on Graham R.'s journalism and letters (particularly her correspondence with her publishers), and the diaries, letters, and journalism of some of her friends and associates. She also analyses Graham R.'s literary output for clues to her life and, while making no claims that Graham R. was a great poet, Hughes shows why she should be rescued from literary obscurity. There is thinner coverage of Watson's earlier phases as Rose Ball and Rosamond Armytage, and this lack of evidence leads to colourful speculation, such as the picturesque account of the young Rose greeting her father and brothers on their return from work, "brimming with...

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,159
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,533

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1590,140

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 Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian StudiesMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207