Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinctions between “given” and “chosen” families and between nuclear and extended ones are crucial to both the unfolding and resolution of plots in period fiction. In most novels, given families – the ones individuals are born into – tend to impede the protagonist’s progress and are usually either renounced or superseded by chosen ones, most often through the device of a concluding marriage that represents the newly wed partners as figures for compromise, the resolution of past injustices, and the promise of future happiness. Orphaned heroes and concealed kinship offer interesting variations on this pattern. Temporary freedom from the customary limits of the inheritance trope – including the fixities of class position, birth order, and paternal control – seems to enhance the likelihood of independence and of rewards based on merit rather than birthright. In fictions of concealed kinship – including Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones , Tobias Smollett’s Humphry Clinker , Frances Burney’s Evelina , and Eliza Fenwick’s Secresy – the disclosure or acknowledgment of paternity in the final chapters curbs the self-direction indulged in the narrative proper, allowing the status quo to be reasserted. But even in the relatively unusual instances of protagonists growing up in complete nuclear families, as in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice , parents are most often liabilities who serve as negative foils to the advancement of the younger generation. This chapter opens with a discussion of Samuel Richardson’s History of Sir Charles Grandison , one of the few novels of the period to represent family – understood both affectively as the nexus of domesticity and genealogically as the sign of inherited status – in unequivocally celebratory terms. As we will see later in this and also in subsequent chapters, the obligations of family relationship are more often honored in the breach than the observance, affirmed in the closing pages of novels rather than appearing throughout as an achieved ideal.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".