MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Popular Novel, 1790–1820

2014· reference-entry· en· W2180956396 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

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernization theoryMainstreamPopularityNegotiationDiversification (marketing strategy)Period (music)HistoryPopular opinionSociologyAestheticsPolitical scienceLiteratureMedia studiesSocial scienceArtLawBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘popular novel’ was variously defined and understood in the period 1790 to 1820, but the Minerva Press was and has been seen, usually negatively, as its major purveyor. Recent research has substantially corrected and complicated this view, and indicated the varieties of novels and of their popularity and uses during that time. In the onset of modernization and its attendant changes, conflicts, and crises, various kinds of novels, perhaps more than other literary forms, helped their various kinds of readers to understand, negotiate, and learn how to manage both modernization and the anxieties of an age of revolutions. In that process, the novel itself underwent revolutionary change and diversification to become the dominant and mainstream form still used today.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207