Literary Influences on Harriet Jacobs's Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Written by Herself
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harriet JacobsA¢â¬â¢s Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Written by Herself (1861) is one of the few Slave Narratives written by women. It is also the best-known and the work that inspired the writings of other female slaves, as well as later female African American authors. This is the reason why I have chosen this narrative to analyze the literary influences on female slave narrators. Jacobs writes the story of her life from slavery to freedom under the pseudonym Linda Brent. Linda Brent is Mr. FlintA¢â¬â¢s daughterA¢â¬â¢s slave. When she is fifteen, Mr. Flint starts to harass her sexually. She resists and falls in love with a free black man. She is not allowed to marry him but they have two children. She hides from her master for several years and plans her childrenA¢â¬â¢s and her own escape. In the end, she manages to escape and live in the North free, with her children. This story of female struggle influenced other female writers, both in the subject and in the literary style of their works. In this article I will focus on mainly three literary traditions to analyze their influence on JacobsA¢â¬â¢s work: the sentimental novel, the picaresque novel and the trickster tale. The mixture of all these different literary styles and the fact that the book was written by a woman A¢â¬and a woman who had been a slaveA¢â¬ from her own point of view make of JacobsA¢â¬â¢s Incidents an original piece of writing.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".