MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604619758 · doi:10.1525/ncl.2017.71.4.546

Review: Object Lessons: The Novel as a Theory of Reference by Jami Bartlett

2017· article· en· W2604619758 on OpenAlex
Daniel Wright

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNineteenth-Century Literature · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconWrightCitationObject (grammar)DownloadLibrary scienceComputer scienceArt historyWorld Wide WebHistoryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| March 01 2017 Review: Object Lessons: The Novel as a Theory of Reference by Jami Bartlett Jami Bartlett, Object Lessons: The Novel as a Theory of Reference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. Pp. xii + 195. $35. Daniel Wright Daniel Wright University of Toronto Daniel Wright is Assistant Professor of English at the University of Toronto. His essay “George Eliot’s Vagueness” appeared in Victorian Studies in 2014, and “Because I Do: Trollope, Tautology, and Desire” was published in ELH in 2013. He is now at work on a book manuscript tentatively titled “Bad Logic: Reasoning about Desire in the Victorian Novel.” Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nineteenth-Century Literature (2017) 71 (4): 546–549. https://doi.org/10.1525/ncl.2017.71.4.546 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Daniel Wright; Review: Object Lessons: The Novel as a Theory of Reference by Jami Bartlett. Nineteenth-Century Literature 1 March 2017; 71 (4): 546–549. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/ncl.2017.71.4.546 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentNineteenth-Century Literature Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2017 by The Regents of the University of California2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · 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