MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996229483 · doi:10.1353/ecf.2003.0041

Gothic Trajectories: Latitudinarian Theology and the Novels of Ann Radcliffe

2003· article· en· W1996229483 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert J. Mayhew

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtPhilosophyTheologyHistoryVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the earliest biographical writings--Sir Walter Scott's assessment and the memoir attached to Radcliffe's posthumously published novel Gaston de Blondeville--the novels of Ann Radcliffe have been located in the trajectory by which the generic norms of Gothic fiction developed. Criticism has placed Radcliffe by anticipation in the context of subsequent developments in the Gothic genre. She is accepted as an important innovator but is also seen as having fallen short of realizing the genre's full potential, largely owing to her penchant for explaining away supernatural events by naturalistic means. The overall assessment of this mode of criticism is well summarized by T.N. Talfourd: Mrs Radcliffe may fairly be considered as the inventor of a new style of romance; equally distant from the old tales of chivalry and magic, and from modern representations of credible incidents and living manners. Her works partially exhibit the charms of each species of composition. Such criticism was written some thirty years after the novels themselves, and thus has the benefit of seeing the generic trajectory of Gothic fiction in a way Radcliffe herself could not at the time of writing. This article is available in Eighteenth-Century Fiction: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/ecf/vol15/iss3/11 Gothic Trajectories: Latitudinarian Theology and the Novels of Ann Radcliffe

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207