Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first of only two occasions on which Jane Austen sanctioned the appearance of her name in print was in the subscription list to Burney's Camilla - a significant tribute by the aspirant 'Miss J. Austen, Steventon' to the woman novelist whose work was, by 1796, widely acknowledged to be 'without a competitor' or, if comparisons were made, to equal that of Richardson and Henry Fielding. When Austen paid tribute to Burney again, more famously, in her defence of novels in Northanger Abbey , she named Cecilia and Camilla , together with Maria Edgeworth's Belinda (1801), as examples of works 'in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best chosen language' (I, ch. v). For modern readers, at least until twentieth-century feminist criticism rediscovered and properly reinstated women writers, Austen herself was the earliest female novelist to be allowed into the literary canon. But for contemporaries, it was Burney who first broke through the prejudices of gender and genre - her own, as well as those of her reviewers - to achieve unequivocal canonical status as a practitioner of the new form of the novel. Beginning with the acclaim which greeted the anonymous publication of Evelina in 1778, Burney's career and reputation and the emergent, but still fragile, respectability of the novel at the end of the eighteenth century are crucially interdependent. Indeed, Austen's assertive celebration of fiction not only as displaying 'the greatest powers of the mind', but also as a form whose greatest living exemplars are women, was possible largely because of the critical respect won by Burney.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.003 |
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".