CLAUDIA L. JOHNSON and CLARA TUITE (eds), A Companion to Jane Austen.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CLAUDIA L. JOHNSON and Clara Tuite’s introduction to this wide-ranging collection of essays focuses on what they identify as a contemporary ‘reenchantment’ with Austen, in distinction to a ‘revival’, which would, they note, be somewhat inappropriate ‘in connection with a figure whose vitality has never abated’ (p. 1). It is indeed an astute characterization, as the sense of new possibilities shapes the pieces that constitute this thought-provoking and engaging book, as does the inevitable awe at the powerful sorcery through which this author managed to transfigure her little bit of ivory into a key that could open doors into so many wondrous expanses. There must have been some editorial magic as well in bringing together forty-two essays by critics from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Canada (and one from Italy), encompassing topics from the nineteenth-century illustrations of the novels (Laura Carroll and John Wiltshire), to ‘The Gothic Austen’ (Nancy Armstrong), Austen’s representations of the military (Gillian Russell), Austen and commodification (Barbara M. Benedict), word games and Emma (Linda Bree), music in Austen’s world (Gillen D’Arcy Wood), and ‘Austenian subcultures’ (Mary Ann O’Farrell), into a single volume continuing Blackwell’s extensive ‘Companion’ series.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it