Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the publication of Evelina and Cecilia , women's novel-writing gained a higher level of critical esteem than it had ever attained before. The two works, separated only by four crowded years during which Burney also wrote and relinquished her first play, show how rapid was the development of the novelist's technique. From the epistolary narrative of Evelina , with its two strands of the heroine's experiences in contemporary society and her confrontation with a troubled family history, Burney moved to a flexible third-person narrative for the more ambitious Cecilia . Encompassing a wider social range than Evelina while unifying its gallery of satirical portraits under an overarching philosophical concern with the traditional philosophical 'choice of life' theme, Cecilia also managed, through the innovative use of free indirect discourse, to give a closer rendition than the earlier novel of its heroine's thoughts and feelings. Different though the two novels are, they share the same fundamental concerns. Both address the issue of what sort of place a young woman can take, what sort of power she may wield, within the patriarchally organised society of late eighteenth-century England. Evelina, wrongly denied the status of legitimate daughter, must be reunited with her father before she can fully take her place in society. Cecilia, inheriting from her uncle only on condition that her husband give up his family name for hers, finds that it would cost too much to remain an heiress. For both heroines the paternal name is at once a source of power and of difficulty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".