Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading literary biographies, and particularly the biographies of women who were writers, raises important questions about how to understand literary productions and what relationship that work has to a life. Two biographies of Sylvia Plath, Anne StevensonA¢â¬â¢s Bitter Fame: A Life of Sylvia Plath and Jacqueline RoseA¢â¬â¢s The Haunting of Sylvia Plath , propose to interpret her work and its relationship to her life in fundamentally different ways, and yet what is striking is the underlying indebtedness to the Romantic tradition of the Artist in both books. The concept of A¢â¬Egenius,A¢â¬â¢ closely associated with the Romantic tradition, invokes gender as the historical definition of A¢â¬EgeniusA¢â¬â¢ excludes women. StevensonA¢â¬â¢s more traditional biography seeks to explain PlathA¢â¬â¢s poetry through Romantic tropes, inserting Plath into the tradition, while Rose proposes to discuss PlathA¢â¬â¢s textual being only. In RoseA¢â¬â¢s text the relation of PlathA¢â¬â¢s work to the Romantic tradition is more complex and RoseA¢â¬â¢s biography engages in a contradiction when it still invokes the significance of the woman behind the texts, a move necessary in part for feminist reasons. For both authors, feminist investment is in conflict with the unacknowledged Romantic ideology shaping their texts. Both authors challenge the Romantic tradition but do not ultimately undermine it. The use of the Romantic tradition in relation to Plath opens the discussion up to larger questions regarding the criteria used to value work, the figure of the artist, and how literary work is produced.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".