MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535756836 · doi:10.1080/00111619.2016.1211602

Mixing Colors, Making Designs: A. S. Byatt’s “Racine and the Tablecloth,” “Rose-Coloured Teacups,” and “Sugar”

2016· article· en· W2535756836 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueCritique Studies in Contemporary Fiction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaintingArtVisual artsCreativityAestheticsStill lifeBiographyIntellectArt historyLiteraturePsychologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Themes of intellectual design, decorative pattern, color stimulus, visual art, and creativity form the framework of A. S. Byatt’s Sugar and Other Stories. In “Racine and the Tablecloth,” “Rose-Coloured Teacups,” and “Sugar,” Byatt translates emotion, intellect, sense, and memory into a language of “fictionalized autobiography” that self-reflexively sheds light on her creative development. The dramatic language of Racine provides a model of intellectual design that contrasts with the embroidered pattern of a tablecloth. A retrospective vision of rose-colored teacups on a tablecloth signifies Victorian décor, implicitly compared with a still life by Matisse (cover illustration). The mixed colors of molten sugar awaken a child’s aesthetic sense in a way later associated with Van Gogh’s paintings and ekphrastically reflected in the novel Still Life. The three stories examined reveal important aspects of Byatt’s fictional art and aesthetic values.

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)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritique Studies in Contemporary FictionSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207