MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565401497

Folklore and the Fantastic in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction

2010· article· en· W2565401497 on OpenAlex
James Reitter

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Folklore · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolkloreScholarshipLegendHistoryLiteratureTerminologyMythologyFolkloristicsClassicsArt historyArtPhilosophyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Folklore and the Fantastic in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction. By Jason Marc Harris. (Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2008. Pp. xii + 235, contents, preface, acknowledgements, footnotes, bibliography, index, $99.95 cloth.)Written for discerning academics familiar with folklore scholarship, Jason Marc Harris' Folklore and the Fantastic in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction offers a useful model for investigating folklore's role in literature, while providing commentary that justifies its presence in British texts of the era. The book is organized into nine chapters, including an insightful introduction that explains some of the basic concepts of folklore analysis and establishes the foundation of the author's study. Citing eminent scholars in the field, Harris establishes credibility rather quickly and the initial literature selected supports this momentum. Indeed, the first book mentioned is Wilkie Collins' The Woman in White, a supernatural mystery of great popularity and significance to the Victorians. Also mentioned are the Grimms, Sir Walter Scott, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Elizabeth Gaskell.Harris successfully strives to include the audience in his first chapter by defining recognized folklore terms (motifs, tale-types, legend, marchen, etc.) as well as his own terminology such as metaphysics in order to establish a theoretical strucuire for die scholarship that follows. This effort is appreciated, as many scholars of literature may not be entirely familiar with these idiosyncratic definitions.Harris also strategically incorporates headings. With emphasis through bold or italicized fonts, Harris makes clear distinctions between categories and subjects with headings. He concludes the chapter with an eye towards die remainder of the book with sections on ideologies and his own argument: what emerges [out of the duality between the cultural elite and the folk achieved by die incorporation of folklore into literature] is a self-conscious rhetoric containing both skepticism and superstition that displays die mind at odds, or rather in conflicted conversation with itself (35). This type of summary passage concluding each chapter is one of the many strengths of the book.Chapter Two, Victorian Literary Fairy Tales: Their Folklore and Function, is an enjoyable and insightful read, fueled heavily by previous scholarship. Harris is certainly not afraid to question some of that analysis - die continuation of which becomes a bit of a problem as the pages turn. He also does a superb job at distinguishing between folk fairy tales and literary fairy tales, creating a solid basis for future analysis, and proceeds to include sections on socio-economics, gender, didacticism, and hybridization. Some of the audiors discussed here are Oscar Wilde and Edith Nesbit, and Ford Maddox Ford - rather interesting and unexpected selections.In Harris' tfiird chapter on James Barrie and George MacDonald, the book takes a decisive turn. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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