MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257444961 · doi:10.1111/lic3.12282

The Fictional Suicides of Mary Wollstonecraft

2015· article· en· W2257444961 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Faubert

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterature Compass · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensibilityPassionIrrationalityRomancePsychoanalysisLiteratureRemorseMeaning (existential)PsychologyWifeNovellaMemoirPhilosophyRationalityPsychiatryArtSocial psychologyPsychotherapistEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Suicide conveyed several distinct meanings in the Romantic period – unlike today, when it is most often attributed to mental illness. This meaning also existed in the long eighteenth century, but it was understood more broadly as irrationality and popularized through the emphasis on extreme passion and emotionalism as related to suicide in the literature of sentiment. William capitalized on this widely recognized and – to some extent – culturally ameliorative significance of suicide by casting his dead wife, Mary Wollstonecraft, as a character in a novel of sensibility when he reported her two suicide attempts in the Memoirs (1798). In doing so, however, Godwin fictionalizes Wollstonecraft's suicide attempts as acts of passion, whereas she explains clearly in her letters that her suicidal desires were utterly rational. Wollstonecraft further explores the concept of rational suicide by presenting it as an act of protest in her fictional works, Mary (1788) and The Wrongs of Woman (1798). In both novellas about the marital enslavement of women, Wollstonecraft draws upon the discourse surrounding slave‐suicide as a logical response to insupportable tyranny and her protagonists' death wishes as willed acts of protest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiterature CompassSame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207