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 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.

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 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.

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 candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,684
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,935

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,015
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