MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105504667 · doi:10.1111/lic3.12160

Fashion and Dress Culture

2014· article· en· W2105504667 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

VenueLiterature Compass · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorScholarshipPeriod (music)AestheticsPhenomenonConsumption (sociology)Key (lock)SociologyHistoryArtVisual artsLawEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article summarises the significant critical works on fashion and dress culture in 19th‐century literature published during the last 10 years, identifying the key trends in this area of scholarship, including work on shopping and consumption, the ‘shopgirl’ and the needlewoman, and reform movements such as the Rational and Aesthetic dress movements. During the 19th century, dress was a battleground on which a number of key debates were fought and contested. But whilst fashion and art historians have long been interested in this period, literary studies has tended to overlook dress, perhaps due to fashion being associated with shallowness and triviality. Fortunately, in the last 10 years, there has been a noticeable increase in critical work that focuses on the important role of fashion and dress in 19th‐century literature and culture. Such work moves beyond viewing dress as merely a metaphor or symbolic device – instead approaching dress as a cultural phenomenon worthy of attention in its own right.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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