MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592357571 · doi:10.3366/vic.2017.0255

Speculation in the Late-Romantic Literary Marketplace

2017· article· en· W2592357571 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictoriographies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWeber, Simmel, Sociological Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeculationRomanceStock market crashCrashContingencyStock marketHistoryLiteratureEconomicsSociologyArtPhilosophyFinanceEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Late-Romantic writers were explicitly engaged with the marketplace, and this involvement shows itself in the themes and genres of their work. Literature of the 1820s, in particular, responds to the distressing economic events of that decade, which experienced a cycle of rampant speculation followed by a stock-market crash in 1825–6. This article examines allegories and analyses of speculation in texts by Byron, John Galt, Walter Scott, and Willibald Alexis, together with the Poyais scandal, a notorious example of real-world financial speculation. Combining fact and fiction, these rapidly written texts are early examples of ‘speculative fiction’ that illustrate the dynamics of speculation as a self-perpetuating performance that is sustained by belief and vulnerable to contingency.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.304 · 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