MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Grub Street and Suicide: A View from the Literary Press in Late Eighteenth‐Century France

2009· article· en· W2004746451 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy L. Caradonna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Eighteenth-Century Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsanityArgument (complex analysis)HistoryCriminologySociologyLiteraturePsychiatryPsychologyArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article investigates the manner in which the French press of the late eighteenth century treated the suicides of Grub Street writers. The main argument is that the secularisation of suicide allowed for new attitudes toward self‐inflicted death. One finds that the underground press callously mocked the suicides of hack writers. Secondarily, the article challenges the notion that suicide became ‘medicalised’ in the eighteenth century, and that contemporaries viewed it solely as an act of insanity.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.020
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Eighteenth-Century StudiesSame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207