MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462091879 · doi:10.3138/ecf.27.1.151

Book Reviews/Critiques de livres

2014· article· en· W2462091879 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalaisHistoryPoliticsBiographyPoetryArt historyClassicsArtLiteratureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

April London, The Cambridge Introduction to the Eighteenth-Century Novel, reviewed by Megan A. Woodworth ed. Michael Bell, The Cambridge Companion to European Novelists, reviewed by Megan A. Woodworth ed. John Richetti, The Cambridge History of English Literature, 1660–1780, reviewed by Megan A. Woodworth Steven Moore, The Novel: An Alternative History, 1600–1800, reviewed by Megan A. Woodworth ed. Elizabeth C. Mansfield and Kelly Malone, Seeing Satire in the Eighteenth Century, SVEC 2013:02, reviewed by Geoffrey Sill Ashley Marshall, The Practice of Satire in England 1658–1770, reviewed by Geoffrey Sill Kelly McGuire, Dying to Be English: Suicide Narratives and National Identity, 1721–1814, reviewed by Nicole Reynolds Wolfram Schmidgen, Exquisite Mixture: The Virtues of Impurity in Early Modern England, reviewed by Katherine M. Quinsey Megan A. Woodworth, Eighteenth-Century Women Writers and the Gentlemen’s Liberation Movement: Independence, War, Masculinity, and the Novel, 1778–1818, reviewed by Robert W. Jones Andrew Swift and Kirsten Elliott, Literary Walks in Bath: Eleven Excursions in the Company of Eminent Authors, reviewed by John Eglin Philippe Barr, Rétif de La Bretonne spectateur nocturne: Une esthétique de la pauvreté, reviewed by Françoise Le Borgne Kathryn R. King, A Political Biography of Eliza Haywood, reviewed by Juliette Merritt Eugenia Zuroski Jenkins, A Taste for China: English Subjectivity and the Prehistory of Orientalism, reviewed by Chi-ming Yang

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
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.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207