MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536976121

Mobilizing the Power of the Unseen: Imagining Self / Imagining Others in L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables

2011· article· en· W1536976121 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lesley D. Clement

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyEgocentrismPower (physics)Perspective (graphical)PsychologyValue (mathematics)PsychoanalysisPerspective-takingElement (criminal law)AestheticsSightSociologySocial psychologyArtVisual artsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables (1908), in detailing the maturation of the precocious adolescent Anne Shirley, explores the psychological insight that the most important element of growing up is expanding one’s primary concern from just oneself to oneself and others – i.e., developing empathy. Although Anne understands in theory the ethics of empathy, her juvenile egocentricity is initially a barrier to her truly attaining it. Montgomery illustrates this process of maturation through metaphors of sight and vision. Throughout the novel, Anne is exposed to different ways of seeing that influence her own perspective and, consequently, her potential to develop empathic relationships with Avonlea’s community members, particularly her neighbour Rachel Lynde and her adoptive parents, Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert. The novel suggests that by being aware of the unseen and attaining multiple perspectives, readers can develop an empathic imagination that recognizes the value of both the seen and unseen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.032
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207