Bibliographic record
Abstract
“My fortune is not equal to your merit,” declares the reformed aristocratic seducer of “Virtue in Distress” (1770) as he proposes to Eliza, a beautiful and virtuous humble laborer. The sentiment that a woman's individual merit provides her with a dowry out-valuing the money of a man of fortune becomes newly comprehensible within the later eighteenth-century's affective landscape. When individual feeling takes precedence over traditional kinship structures in uniting love with marriage, laboring-class women are theoretically poised to profit the most from companionate marriage's implied revolutionary economics. Samuel Richardson's infamous Pamela (1740) was the first text to turn the Cinderella fairy tale into a realistic narrative in which a laboring-class heroine's virtue could be rewarded with both the love and the hand of her upper-class seducer. Though the story, as historians have demonstrated, was not grounded in probable reality, the ‘virtue rewarded’ narrative becomes newly recognizable as a mimetic tale. This chapter focuses on seduction narratives that have poor heroines but ones that, unlike Pamela, circulated within street literature, and asks what function the repetition of seduction serves when it is directed at a laboring-class readership. What happens to Pamela's story when it is told not within a sentimental novel but in prose narrative chapbooks and in popular ballads? Two major differences appear when we turn from novels to cheap print: one, the plot of seduction in street literature does not easily or always follow the path of virtue rewarded with marriage but includes non-sentimental comic and tragic tellings; and two, the narratives are primarily told from third-person, not first-person, perspectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".