Bibliographic record
Abstract
"[W]hat on earth do women want?" Dorothy L. Sayers imagines men asking in her 1938 essay "Are Women Human?" Her answer is unequivocal: “I do not know that women, as women, want anything in particular, but as human beings they want, my good men, exactly what you want yourselves: interesting occupation, reasonable freedom for their pleasures, and a sufficient emotional outlet". Many of Sayers's readers may suspect her of having created detective novelist Harriet Vane to embody her dream of a life that features satisfying work, creature comforts, and a passionate marriage. As the love interest Sayers developed for detective Lord Peter Wimsey, Harriet Vane illustrates the possibility of an intelligent woman's finding happiness in both her work and her marriage to a wealthy and interesting man. As Harriet develops from the damsel in distress in the novel Strong Poison (1930) into a successful writer and amateur sleuth in Have His Carcase (1932) and proves capable of serious scholarship in Gaudy Night (1935), her relationship with Lord Peter resembles the standard romance plot Janice Radway develops in Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Although the Vane-Wimsey romance depicted in the novels follows the romance trajectory Radway traces, Sayers veers from that path in Busman's Honeymoon (1937), her play about the first stage of the couple's marriage. This essay examines Sayers's use of that play and her next, Love All, to question the literary and cultural convention of romantic love. As she transplants Lord Peter and Harriet Vane from the page to the stage in Busman's Honeymoon, Sayers sows the seeds of anti-romanticism that bloom in Love All (1940). Moving away from the conventional courtship plot of the first three Vane-Wimsey novels, Sayers uses her early plays to assert the value of meaningful work, mutual respect, and loving service beyond the realm of romance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".