Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracing out the stages of the reception history of Amelia Opie’s poems, this essay shows that changes in assumptions about sensibility and women’s poetics whereby they came to be gendered “feminine and weak” reduced the political power of Opie’s poetry. Not only Opie’s contemporaneous reviewers but also Opie herself, following their lead in her later publications, enacted a shift in focus from the politics of class to the poetics of gender. At first, the radicalism of some of Opie’s poems that focus on class combined with her appropriately gendered use of a poetics of sentiment rendered conservative reviews ambivalent in their evaluations of her poetry: they approved of the sentimentality but sensed political danger. As Opie accommodated her reviewers’ criticisms, her poetry increasingly conformed to a feminine poetics that obscured the anti-classist and anti-racist radicalism constitutive of her earlier poetics. The political is definitively laid to rest by later generations of critics who see Opie’s work as reflecting rather than analyzing the feelings of her time and thus as merely of nostalgic interest.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".