MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561727371 · doi:10.3138/cras.2016.005

Hawthorne, a Pilgrimage to Salem, and the Poetics of Literary Tourism

2016· article· en· W2561727371 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Baraw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsPilgrimageNarrativeLiteratureTourismArtAppealHistoryAdventureGeniusArt historyPoetryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the 1830s to the end of his career, Nathaniel Hawthorne used the tropes of aesthetic tourism to call out, or interpellate, the reader as a literary tourist. In many cases, Hawthorne’s focalizing persona points to the picturesque or sentimental qualities of a scene: in some cases, he transports readers to a past made visitable through the stories he recounts; in others, he serves as both guide and object of the tour. This article examines the “touristic poetics” that animate Hawthorne’s work by bringing together Hawthorne’s “Alice Doane’s Appeal” with a contemporaneous sketch by an anonymous reader. While the frame narrative of “Alice Doane’s Appeal” makes explicit the call to the literary tour, “A Day of Disappointment in Salem” represents a literary pilgrimage by a Southern tourist who is so moved by reading Twice-Told Tales that he decides to call on the author at his home. Together these works illustrate the textual poetics that helped shape literary production, reception, and tourism in the period and, at the same time, fostered the canonization of Hawthorne and his homes.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207