MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478211526 · doi:10.4000/147tr

Goblin Market de Christina G. Rossetti : « sororité » et tentations d’innocence

2004· article· en· W2478211526 on OpenAlexaff
George Letissier

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers victoriens et édouardiens · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInnocenceTemptationAmbivalenceLiteraturePoetryPassionFantasyNarrativePhilosophyOpposition (politics)ArtAestheticsPsychoanalysisTheologyLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goblin Market is a perfect exemplar of what English critics label as cross-audienced poems. It has been read in turn as a children’s fairy tale and adult erotic fantasy. This paper shows that in Rossetti’s narrative poem the biblical episode of the Fall is permeated by a Pre-Raphaelite form of sensuousness. All the ambivalence of the text stems from its apparent hesitation overcoming temptation, and celebrating the delights the very possibility of temptation offers. A stylistic analysis of key extracts would suggest that the evocation of the Original Sin makes for unprecedented writing creativity. Through her two feminine characters, Lizzie who resists temptation and her sister Laura who succumbs to it, Rossetti subtly adumbrates a discourse on feminine desire. The structure of the verse conveys the dialectic interdependence between expression and repression, overflow and barrier, which mirrors the inner contradictions of passion. Finally this article argues that the poem dreams up the possibility of going beyond the innocence/experience polar opposition through a fall into a second innocence.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers victoriens et édouardiensSame topicThomas Hardy Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207