MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989289926 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.20.1.005

With My Body I Thee Worship: Joe Wright’s Erotic Vision in <i>Pride &amp; Prejudice</i> (2005)

2008· article· en· W1989289926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maureen Sabine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrightPridePrejudice (legal term)ArtTheme (computing)White (mutation)Art historyRomanceMythologyPoetrySociologyLiteraturePsychoanalysisAestheticsPhilosophyPsychologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Film and literary critics are sharply divided over the merits of Joe Wright’s 2005 Austen film adaptation, Pride & Prejudice. My essay bridges this divide by suggesting that the director projects an erotic vision which simultaneously draws on venerable literary sources and popular youth culture. Wright’s stated intention was to make “a youth film” that captured the spirit of youthful excitement he felt in reading Austen’s novel for the first time. However he highlighted the theme of young love and at the same time gave his Pride & Prejudice poetic depth and gravity by alluding intertextually to the erotic tropes that were immortalized in Romeo and Juliet and that had their roots in ancient myths and tales of romance. This essay situates Wright’s filmic vision within a wider feminist cultural and theological project of speculation on erotic desire, sexual embodiment and “the holiness of the heart’s affections.”

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207