MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1804270653 · doi:10.4000/episteme.633

Sense and sensibility : Mary Wollstonecraft as Active Witness to History

2011· article· fr· W1804270653 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Zimpfer

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes Épistémè · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessSensibilityPhilosophyLiteratureSublimation (psychology)AestheticsHistoryPsychoanalysisArtPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to show that in A Vindication of the Rights of Men Mary Wollstonecraft redefines historical practice by turning satire into a mode of historical cognition. Satire is here understood as a form of aesthetic sublimation of the violence inherent in polemical discourse. Wollstonecraft thus seeks to delegitimize Edmund Burke’s rendition of the French Revolution and, beyond, Burke himself as a historian, notably by feminizing him while presenting herself as an active witness to history.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.027
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 venueÉtudes ÉpistémèSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207