MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314710354 · doi:10.1111/lic3.12052

Remediating Romanticism

2013· article· en· W2314710354 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

VenueLiterature Compass · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNarrative Theory and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanticismPeriodizationScholarshipEnlightenmentRomanceDisciplineReflexivityAgency (philosophy)SociologyField (mathematics)PsychologyEpistemologyLiteratureSocial scienceHistoryArtPsychoanalysisPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this essay is two‐fold: first, to survey exemplary recent work on Romanticism and media studies; and second, to elucidate the key theoretical and methodological issues that arise from this work and hence might serve as coordinates for the future development of the field. The essay addresses the following issues central to both Romantic Literature and Media Studies: how to assign agency within complex techno‐human assemblages; how media studies affects questions of literary historical periodization, especially with regard to the transition between the Enlightenment and Romantic eras; how to account for the constitutive reflexivity of media studies as a discipline; and how the adoption of a media historical research program might help to re‐model the disciplinary boundaries of contemporary humanities scholarship.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.201
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