MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486030042 · doi:10.1057/9780230597914_11

Zelda as Patient

2004· book-chapter· en· W2486030042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Wagner‐Martin

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeReputationDaughterFace (sociological concept)Quarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyPsychoanalysisHistoryLawSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“I left my capacity for hoping on the little roads that led to Zelda’s sanitarium,” Scott wrote in his Notebooks . 1 There is slight reason to think Fitzgerald’s almost continuous references to Zelda’s mental illness were entirely self-serving; he did not refer to her and her condition as a means of getting attention, nor did he use her breakdowns as a way of legitimating his heavy drinking. Despite his cruelly defensive remarks when he was made to face her, particularly in the company of her doctors or psychiatrists, Scott Fitzgerald in 1934 was forced to realize that his carefully orchestrated life as the male half of a celebrated couple had ended. His “life” as he had created it was gone. Left with the care of not only his wife but also his daughter, his mother, his professional reputation as one of the great contemporary writers, and himself, Fitzgerald at scarcely thirty-seven was bereft of confidence—both emotional and financial. He had assumed he and Zelda would be partners throughout their lives. Now he knew they would not be. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.011

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207