MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315203496 · doi:10.3138/ecf.28.3.447

“Set the winter at defiance”: <i>Emily Montague</i>’s Weather Reports and Political Sensibility

2016· article· en· W2315203496 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Morgan Vanek

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensibilityPoliticsCharacter (mathematics)AffectionHistoryLawSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the political significance of the detailed descriptions of Canada’s very cold weather in Frances Brooke’s epistolary novel, The History of Emily Montague (1769). In 1769, public sphere debate about Canada was focused on the difficulty of displacing French Catholic loyalties among new British subjects. By using the same terms to describe the effects of the weather on her British protagonists and the effects of French Catholic influence on the new subjects these travellers hope to convert to British values, Brooke identifies French Catholic “coldness of character” as a serious threat to the British project to cultivate affection in these colonists. By the novel’s end, however, Brooke’s protagonists also model a willingness to enjoy the weather’s influence that aligns assimilating to British values with improvements in sensibility, rather than conflict. I conclude that tracking this change in Brooke’s characters’ writing about the weather casts new light on Emily Montague’s contribution to an important mid-century debate about how Britain would imagine and manage the increasingly diverse environments of its empire.

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)0.002
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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207