MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135159301 · doi:10.1111/lic3.12088

British Romanticism and Paper Money

2013· article· en· W2135159301 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanticismRomanceLiteratureDialecticCriticismHistorySociologyAestheticsPhilosophyArtEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Scholars of British Romanticism have of late become very interested in the suspension of cash payments, which, from 1797 to 1821, disallowed customers from exchanging notes for coin at the Bank of England and effectively made Britain the first paper money economy in modern history. Like their colleagues in eighteenth‐century and Victorian studies, Romanticists in the 1980s and 90s assumed the structural homology between money and language derived from Marx, Freud, and the Cambridge historians (Brewer, Pocock) that made the study of money in literature akin to the general thematic of representation. Recent work, by contrast, has shown that before and during the Romantic period, as commercial value came to replace the social meanings it had once embodied, questions about what money is, what form it should take, how it should circulate, and by whom were more contentious than previously understood. These contentious played a significant role in shaping the dialectical character of Romantic literature. Recent discussions of these debates have also opened up fissures in the field of economic criticism between advocates of “historical description” and adherents of “close reading” that will likely galvanize the field of British Romantic studies.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.168 · 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