MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613393014 · doi:10.1386/host.8.1.97_1

‘House of mirrors’: The sentient house as homosocial space in Andrew Pyper’s The Guardians

2017· article· en· W2613393014 on OpenAlexaff
Suzette Mayr

Bibliographic record

VenueHorror Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychicMasculinityHouse of RepresentativesSociologyArtHegemonySpace (punctuation)Gender studiesAestheticsLawPhilosophyPolitical sciencePoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In The Poetics of Space ([1958] 1969), Gaston Bachelard proposes that ‘The house is a “psychic state”’, and focuses on the childhood house – specifically ‘the house we were born in’ – because he believes that with this ‘first’ house one establishes a ‘passionate liaison’. Andrew Pyper’s novel The Guardians (2011) is ostensibly a haunted house novel about four men battling a malevolent house, but the novel is also about the unique love the men express for and with each other – what masculinity scholars Hammarén and Johansson would label ‘horizontal homosociality’ or ‘a more sensitive and intimate masculinity’. Ultimately, the malevolent house provides the only venue in which the men can express this intimate love for each other. I argue that the house’s relationship with the men is, fundamentally, a ‘passionate liaison’; for while the men were not born in the house and so it is not literally their ‘first’ house, the house forces key rites of passage that bind the men and the house together forever. With the house’s destruction at the novel’s conclusion the male relationships are constrained and hollowed out by hegemonic masculine expectations and stereotypes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.050
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHorror StudiesSame topicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality StudiesFrench-language works237,207