MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473932013 · doi:10.3138/ecf.28.4.713

“Sublime Luxuries” of the Gothic Edifice: Immersive Aesthetics and Kantian Freedom in the Novels of Ann Radcliffe

2016· article· en· W2473932013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kristin M. Girten

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeAestheticsPower (physics)RomanceRomanticismArtAesthetic theoryPhilosophyArt historyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the variable meanings and effects of gothic architecture across Ann Radcliffe’s three most important novels —The Romance of the Forest (1791), The Mysteries of Udolpho (1794), and The Italian (1797). With her variable por trayal of the gothic edifice, Radcliffe presents a distinctively immersive version of the sublime that significantly challenges the aesthetic philosophies of Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant in its capacity to coexist with real, immediate fear. Radcliffe presents and encour ages a markedly democratic aesthetic of terror designed to empower even disenfranchised individuals. This article argues that Radcliffe’s novels teach readers how to achieve the sublime in the most difficult cir cumstances, thus making widely available both the sublime and also what the sublime represents—freedom. Within the walls of the gothic edifice, Radliffe demonstrates that individuals have the potential for, and indeed the right to, the power to define and pursue the fulfilment of their own desires, even when such desires run counter to the tyrannies of patriarchal history and tradition.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207