MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602384392

The Complexities of Sara Jeannette Duncan’s Imperialist Attitudes

2009· article· en· W2602384392 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karyn Huenemann

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsHonourSupporterPortraitExpatriateColonialismSociologyLawIdeal (ethics)HistoryPolitical scienceArt historyGenealogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A supporter of both imperialist ideals and feminist struggles, Canadian journalist and author Sara Jeannette Duncan was the epitome of the strong colonial woman who is sometimes parodied, often admired, in late Victorian British writing. But Duncan did not limit her political involvement to Canadian soil nor Canadian issues. Married to an Englishman resident in India, she turned her journalistic pen to Indian topics, another side of the imperialist coin, while remaining ever aware of happenings in her native country and constantly reminded by her social environment that she was indeed both colonial and expatriate. Duncan's Indian political novels – His Honour, and a Lady (1895), Set in Authority (1906), and The Burnt Offering (1909) – are particularly interesting in their melding of political, social, and moral attitudes inherent in Anglo-Indian society. In contrast to the gleaming imperialist ideals and the sullied morals portrayed in many of Kipling's popular stories, Duncan's lesser-known works show the complexities of the society which became her own. This article investigates Duncan's Indian political novels along side the Canadian political novel for which she is most well known, The Imperialist (1904), establishing a clear portrait of Duncan's changing view of the Imperialist ideal.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207