MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342239975 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2016.0007

Oscar Wilde and the French Press, 1880–91

2016· article· en· W2342239975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebecca Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDecadence, Literature, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While most accounts of Oscar Wilde’s reception history agree that French critics paid little attention to his work until the 1890s, this article suggests that the French press responded to Wilde’s writing earlier—throughout the 1880s—and in a more sustained fashion than has been previously thought. Tracing dozens of contemporary articles never before discussed, it shows that the periodical press in France attended to each of the major developments in Wilde’s career, including his first volume of poetry and the essays that marked his shift from a lecturing aesthete to a writer of consequence.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicDecadence, Literature, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207