MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048990340 · doi:10.3138/cras.2015.s06

“But Suppose I Did Want a Boy?” Homosexual Economies in Herman Melville’s <i>The Confidence-Man</i>

2015· article· en· W2048990340 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert K. Martin, Leland S. Person

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)QueerBachelorHomosexualityDatabase transactionOfficerSociologyPerceptionGender studiesLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyArtEpistemologyLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article is centred on chapter twenty-two of The Confidence-Man, the chapter in which the con man, in the guise of Philosophical Intelligence Officer, tries to sell a boy to Pitch, the misanthropic Missouri bachelor who has used up some thirty boys on his backwoods farm and now wants to replace boys with machines. Structured as an epistolary dialogue between the two authors, the article explores the complex ways Melville’s novel positions its readers and the desires they bring to the text. Can the long debate in chapter twenty-two about buying boys be read as a transaction between a pimp and a pederast? Do other homosocial encounters in the novel encode homosexuality and thus reinforce our perception of it in chapter twenty-two? The authors argue for a queer reading of The Confidence-Man and in the process foreground their own sexual identities and reading practices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.026
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.272
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

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
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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207