MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155595815 · doi:10.3138/ecf.28.1.25

Personhood, Property Rights, and the Child in John Locke‘s <i>Two Treatises of Government</i> and Daniel Defoe‘s Fiction

2015· article· en· W2155595815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aparna Gollapudi

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodNarrativeProperty (philosophy)PoliticsScholarshipProperty rightsRepresentation (politics)Government (linguistics)State (computer science)SociologyLawPolitical scienceLiteraturePhilosophyEpistemologyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most scholarship that links John Locke’s ideas with eighteenth-century representations of childhood approaches children as Lockean peda gogic subjects ready for moral and intellectual education. This article instead brings to bear on Daniel Defoe’s representation of children Locke the political thinker, who articulates in Two Treatises of Government (1689) a person’s right to “liberty and property.” Locke’s influential theories of owner ship are partly responsible for the eighteenth-century investment in distinguishing between property and persons, and often reduce children to a state of compromised personhood. The numerous children who lurk in Defoe’s densely textured narrative worlds are evidence of a cultural sidelining of the child in new models of selfood based on property rights. The child in Defoe’s fiction is persistently framed as a problematic economic entity. Such reduction of children to a bare economic function is of a piece with emergent notions of Lockean Man as a bearer of fundamental property rights. The many children born in the course of Defoe’s narratives are consistently marginalized, pointing to their complex narrative function in stories about protagonists who are intent on property accumulation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207