MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022921413 · doi:10.7771/1481-4374.1082

Thematizing the Subject from Gothicism to Late Romanticism

2000· article· en· W2022921413 on OpenAlexaff
Slobodan Sucur

Bibliographic record

VenueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and Culture · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanticismSublimeSubject (documents)RomanceNarrativeLiteraturePeriod (music)Statement (logic)ArtRelation (database)PhilosophyAestheticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In "Thematizing the Subject from Gothicism to Late Romanticism," Slobodan Sucur takes Habermas's suggestion that "modern art reveals its essence in Romanticism; and absolute inwardness determines the form and content of Romantic art" and offers an analysis of a spectrum of primary texts in relation to the statement. The texts analysed range from Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto to Odoyevsky’s Russian Nights. The texts are analyzed in chronological fashion, in an attempt to see how the thematization of the subject shifts as the Early Gothic novel (Walpole, Radcliffe) develops into High Romanticism (Hoffmann, Maturin) and finally into Late Romanticism (Poe, Odoyevsky). There appears to be a gradual but perceptible shift from third- to first-person narration across this broad period. Consequently, the present study engages ideas of the sublime (Edmund Burke, Carl Grosse), the picturesque (Uvedale Price), and spatial constructs, and attempts to see the ways in which such ideas reconfigure the subject and are themselves reconfigured as the subject is further thematized during these significant years in which the Gothic novel is transformed into other Romantic and Late Romantic forms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.024
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and CultureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207