Bibliographic record
Abstract
I brought with me Hurd's Dialogues on Education, which have entertained his Grace very well, and a silly harmless story book called Maria, which serves to entertain myself at minutes when I am fit for nothing else. (Catherine Talbot to Elizabeth Carter, 1764) Sophronia : Pray what is your opinion of Miss Minifie 's Novels? Euphrasia : They are in the class of mediocrity, if I were to mention such, it would make our task too long and tedious, I must therefore pass over these, and hundreds beside that are very innocent and moral books. (Clara Reeve, The Progress of Romance , 1785) While insisting upon the need to reexamine mid-eighteenth-century women writers, this study has to this point taken for granted the importance of the publications and professional lives of Frances Sheridan, Frances Brooke, Sarah Scott, Sarah Fielding, and Charlotte Lennox. Perhaps the implication has even been that they merit this attention simply because their work has not been attended to sufficiently in the past. In a recent plenary presentation, Susan Staves argued that feminist literary critics have been reluctant to make value judgments about the work they are “recovering” or “rereading” or “restoring” for fear of a return to the exclusive universalizations of canon-making. Without by any means claiming to resolve the problems raised by a return to the discourse of aesthetic value, I want to take some steps in this chapter toward acknowledging the issue and determining how early “situated” critical commentary can be used as a guideline for reinstating women writers in a literary history that takes into account what might tentatively be isolated as transhistorical, but generically specific, criteria of aesthetic value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".