Rewriting <i>Clarissa</i>: Alternative Endings by Lady Echlin, Lady Bradshaigh, and Samuel Richardson
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is concerned with four alternative endings to Samuel Richardson’s second and greatest novel, Clarissa (1747–48). The longest and most significant ending was written by Elizabeth, Lady Echlin during the winter of 1748–49 while she visited her sister Dorothy, Lady Bradshaigh at Haigh Hall, Lancaster. Lady Echlin wrote her alternative conclusion shortly after reading the last three volumes of Clarissa, published together in December 1748; she was much distressed by the heroine’s rape at the hand of Lovelace and her subsequent death, and sought to alleviate the tragedy. So too did her sister, Lady Bradshaigh, in two brief new endings of her own: one in a letter to Richardson of December 1748 and the other drafted later in her copy of the first edition of Clarissa. The fourth ending is a fantasy conclusion, out lined by Richardson in a letter to Lady Echlin of 14–18 February 1755. Although the four endings differ in many ways, all create a fate for Lovelace far preferable to that reserved for him in the original tragic novel.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it