MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076261165 · doi:10.7202/007721ar

“Formed with Curious Skill”: Blessington’s negotiation of the “poetess” in Flowers of Loveliness

2004· article· en· W2076261165 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann R. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanticism on the Net · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryNegotiationLiteratureOrder (exchange)Stock (firearms)Computer scienceHistoryArtSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay demonstrates how Marguerite, Countess of Blessington, relied upon but also diverged from poetess poetics as a way of forging her own poetic voice without sacrificing the economic success enjoyed by anyone willing to write poetry in the style and manner of the annuals. As a close-reading of both content and context of Blessington’s satiric poem “The Stock in Trade of the Modern Poetess” reveals, Blessington capitalizes on her Byronic disdain for the annuals, thus simultaneously spurning poetess poetry and making a bid for financial success, the success typically enjoyed by writers willing to truck in poetess “stock.” In order to achieve both financial success and poetic merit, Blessington plays to the crowd who expects beautiful images of the nation in poetess poetry, but not by using the same "stock" as does poetess poetry: instead of setting up national heroines to be worshipped, Blessington recasts typical symbols used by the poetess for romantic and domestic relationships as ties that bind one person to another in the nation. Blessington’s oeuvre illustrates one dramatic instance of participation in the poetess tradition, showing us that women writers didn’t simply succumb to poetess conventions but rather manipulated the “stock in trade” of the poetess in order to achieve literary without sacrificing financial success.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanticism on the NetSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207