MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017685519 · doi:10.1353/ecf.2002.0016

Habits of Empire and Domination in Eliza Fenwick's Secresy

2002· article· en· W2017685519 on OpenAlex
Malinda Snow

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireArtPhilosophyHistoryAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habits of Empire and Domination in Eliza Fenwick's Secresy Malinda Snow Eliza Fenwick's novel Secresy; or, The Ruin on the Rock (1795) displays an unusual collocation of Gothic devices and a Jacobin purposefulness, set forth in an epistolary format. Readers have noted that the novel describes female oppression, also noting Fenwick 's interest in children's education and her association with Mary Wollstonecraft.1 Those who examine specific characters in the novel remark primarily upon Sibella Valmont as someone removed from social convention, a child of nature, a product of her sensibility.2 Readers have not, however, examined Fenwick's references to In1 Secresy; or, The Ruin on the Rock was largely inaccessible to modern readers until the publication of the Pandora edition (London, 1989), with introduction byJanet Todd, followed by the Broadview Press edition, ed. Isobel Grundy (Peterborough, Ont., 1994; 1998). For biographical information, seeJanet Todd, "Eliza Fenwick," in British Women Writers: A Critical Reference Guide (New York: Continuum, 1989), pp. 241-42. Further information may be found in Grundy's introduction to her edition. Eliza Fenwick and her husband John, a sometime translator and journalist, were part of the publisherJoseph Johnson's group of radical writers and were well enough acquainted with the Godwins that Eliza attended MaryWollstonecraft Godwin upon her death in 1797 (Todd, " Eliza Fenwick," p. 242). Terry Castle's review of the Grundy edition, "Sublimely Bad," London Review ofBooL·, 23 February 1995, pp. 18-19, with the subsequent debate over the novel's merits, was the first extensive modern critical comment on Fenwick's work. Several full-length articles or chapters have since then appeared, promising more inclusion ofthis novel in discussions ofprose fiction of the 1790s. See Charlene E. Bunnell, "Breaking the Tie That Binds: Parents and Children in Romantic Fiction," Family Matters in the British and American Novel, ed. Andrea O'Reilly et al. (Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1997), pp. 31-53;Julia M. Wright, "? Am 111 Fitted': Conflicts of Genre in Eliza Fenwick's Secresy," Romanticism , History, and the Possibilities ofGenre: Re-formingLiterature 1 789—1837, ed. Tilottama Rajan and Julia M. Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 149-75; and Sarah Emsley, "Radical Marriage," Eighteenlh-Cenlury Fiction 11:4 (1999), 477-98. 2 Katherine M. Rogers calls Sibella "a female Noble Savage." Feminism in Eighteenth-Century EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION, Volume 14, Number 2,January 2002 160EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION dia and the English exploitation of Indian wealth. Isobel Grundy actually sets aside the references to India as secondary, arguing that the novel's chief concern lies with condemning "the parental generation."3 A reader examining the parental or familial domination of Sibella, nevertheless, will find the details relating to India pertinent to the theme offemale oppression. Caroline Ashburn, the principal epistolary narrator in Secresy, looks with alarm upon the treatment of her friend Sibella. Likewise, Caroline regards with discomfort and distrust her own family's sojourn in India, where her parents grew wealthy. Thus it is Caroline's analytic gaze that ties the two circumstances together and prompts the reader to find similarities between familial and imperial behaviour. In considering the oppression of Sibella and of India, Caroline is discomforted by her suspicions that innocent victims have suffered while selfish predators have stolen their freedom and their resources. What I shall argue is that the novel is not principally about Sibella as female rebel or as "natural" heroine, or about Caroline, or overbearing parents, but that it concerns itself more generally with exploitation and oppression , and with the moral discernment required to detect such inhumanity. Moreover, the references to India, without constituting a developed plot in the novel, push us to engage our own moral discernment and to reflect on the relationship between public and private governance. Students of later eighteenth-century English society will find frequent mention ofIndia and extensive debate about appropriate economic and public policy for that country, along with condemnation of the figure called the "nabob"—the man who goes out to India as a youth, often employed by the East India Company as a "factor," gets rich, then returns to England with his wealth. Among Secresy's England (Urbana...

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 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 score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.241 · 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