MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403192531 · doi:10.3138/utq.85.2.02

Fantastical Conversations with the Other in the Self: Dorothy L. Sayers (1893–1957) and Her Peter Wimsey as Animus

2016· article· en· W2403192531 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriarchyArchetypeCharacter (mathematics)Relation (database)PsychoanalysisElement (criminal law)LiteraturePhilosophySociologyPsychologyArtGender studiesLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dorothy L. Sayers created in her fictional character Lord Peter Wimsey a “contrasexual” figure in her own imagination, with whom she carried on an extended dialogue over many years. C.G. Jung's concept of the contrasexual archetype, the anima (in men) or the animus (in women), can provide a very useful tool for investigating the presence of this transgendered voice within the self. Specifically in relation to Sayers and her Wimsey, Jung's theory can uncover the successful conversion of a potentially “bad animus” into a positive one, or, in other words, Sayers's successful creation in herself of her own “masculine” voice to replace the harmful voice of the patriarchy. Not unlike Hélène Cixous's concept of the “other bisexuality,” the contrasexual element in Sayers provides a model too for her readers to “speak woman” in a full or rounded way.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207