Trivialized Female Idealism and Valourized Male Realism: The Importance of Being George
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any consideration of artistic movement of literature in nineteenth century must express concern with apparent gendering of aesthetic categories and ways in which that gendering shapes reception and valourization of various texts as well as de-valourization of many female-authored texts. One of primary ways in which this heirarchization occurs is through binary opposition which has been accepted between idealist novel and realist novel. In particular, women writers such as George Sand, George Eliot, and George Egerton have been variously trivialized or valourized in relation to canon. It is a model which asserts realism as dominant mode of writing and secures its superiority within paradigm of representation through the alignment of its terms with paradigm of gender (Schor 1993,11), and which needs to be reconsidered along with need to rethink idealism in novel especially as it pertains to gendering of these two aesthetic categories. Perhaps a reading of Georges will demonstrate that rather than characterization of aesthetic categories as a dialectical, Hegelian struggle between idealism and realism, there may be
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".