Bibliographic record
Abstract
Samuel Richardson's vindication of female virtue through his emplotment of seduction in Clarissa participates in the same movement to redefine sexual difference that gives rise to the new image of the penitent prostitute as a victim of seduction in mid-eighteenth-century Britain. The prostitute became an object of pity and charity, in part, because women's essential nature had been re-imagined to exclude innate vice. William Dodd, a central figure in the Magdalen Hospital and its chaplain, rationalizes the charity's mandate to reform prostitutes by invoking the new definition of essential femininity: “every man that reflects on the true condition of humanity, must know, that the life of a common prostitute, is as contrary to the nature and condition of the female sex, as darkness to light.” Unsurprisingly, Richardson was a supporter of the Magdalen charity from the beginning and, like its founders, he understood the prostitute as a victim of seduction, abandoned to poverty but essentially innocent. We see this in his enthusiastic defense of T. C. Phillips when she published her courtesan narrative shortly after the appearance of Clarissa in 1748. In a letter to Lady Bradshaigh, he indites Phillips's initial seducer, Grimes, and vindicates Phillips's virtue because he believes her initial fall happened without her consent: “What, think you, has not Mr Grimes to answer for in the ruin of Constantia Philips … if the story she tells be true? What ruins, the consequences of her ruin, may not be laid at his door?
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".