MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034940670 · doi:10.3828/eir.2013.20.7

A Family Affair: Ennobling Suicide in Mary Shelley's <i>Matilda</i>

2013· article· en· W2034940670 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEssays in Romanticism · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaTheme (computing)NovellaPassionRomanceLiteraturePlot (graphics)Subject (documents)Argument (complex analysis)Tragedy (event)PsychoanalysisPhilosophySociologyArtPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mary Shelley's 1819 novella, Matilda was published for the first time in 1959. Most scholars point to the scandalous subject matter of father-daughter incestuous passion as the root of the problem for publication, but this essay argues that the scandalous incest plot is largely a vehicle Shelley uses to explore another shocking topic: the right to commit suicide. The incest theme of Matilda serves Shelley's main argument that suicide may be regarded as virtuous, honourable, and even socially beneficial. Through her delineation of the family drama in which a father desires his daughter, Shelley incorporates ideas from the broad cultural debate about the right to take one's own life as they are represented in the writings of members of her own family—and, in so doing, she enacts another kind of family drama. This essay focuses on Shelley's engagement in a philosophical conversation with members of her family, alive and dead, who, through their writings and lived experiences, represent various aspects of the Romantic-era suicide debate.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.226 · 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