Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume: Lors du Congres des societes savantes de 2000, la communication de Laura M. Robinson intitulee Les amies de cœur: le desir lesbien dans les œuvres de L.M. Montgomery a souleve beaucoup d'interet dans les journaux canadiens. A la lumiere de l'histoire des mentalites, Gavin White analyse cette these du lesbianisme sublime. S'il concede que le caractere exclusif et passionel de l'amitie romanesque du dix-neuvieme siecle, d'inspiration neoplatonicienne, ne peut etre ignore, il doute cependant que cette amitie de cœur puisse etre interpretee comme une manifestation de lesbianisme. Summary: During and after the 2000 Learned Conventions, Laura M. Robinson's paper called Bosom Friends: Lesbian Desire in L.M. Montgomery's Anne Books received a great deal of attention in the media across Canada. Gavin White summarizes the main point in her unpublished but much discussed paper (Montgomery concocts a surprising array of alternatives to heterosexuality) and, after discussing several important scholarly studies of women's history, he recontextualizes Robinson's paper within the shifting attitudes towards women's friendships in the early twentieth century and the general confusion over the meaning of the term lesbian. Discussing nineteenth-century terms such as romantic friendships, kindred spirits, and bosom friends, which he locates in neo-Platonic thought, he argues that Robinson is correct in saying that Montgomery's detailed accounts of girls' and women's friendships with other females cannot be ignored, but disagrees that this is what the world would call lesbian.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".