MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018758068 · doi:10.1080/10509580802407318

<i>Werther</i>and the epistolary novel

2008· article· en· W2018758068 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueEuropean Romantic Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicGerman Literature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsolation (microbiology)LiteratureQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryPsychologyAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article posits that Werther substantially revises the epistolary form made standard by the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Acts of miscommunication dominate the novel: letters are sent but never received. Such misdirections create inadequate models of exchange and fractured communities of people, which in turn produce isolation and despair great enough to influence Werther's suicide. Of course Werther does not kill himself because he is a bad letter writer, yet the novel's, and Werther's, departures from the conventions of epistolarity deserve attention for the ways in which they transform the genre. By examining the metaphors and literalizations of writing and exchange in the novel, I reveal a failed postal system governing the characters and text.

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 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.165 · 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