Conjugal Utopia: Marriage and Social Transformation in Rousseau’s <i>Julie, ou la Nouvelle Héloïse</i> and Leprince de Beaumont’s <i>La Nouvelle Clarice</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utopias represent a crucial means of Enlightenment critique and inquiry. A general eighteenth-century blind spot vis-à-vis women as subjects and sociopolitical agents, as well as the discrepancy be tween their onerous obligations and incommensurate rights, is thrown into stark relief by two utopias: Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Julie, ou la Nouvelle Héloïse (1761) and Marie Leprince de Beaumont’s La Nouvelle Clarice (1767). The writers’ pedagogical backgrounds inform each novel’s emphasis on a heroine’s education, which determines the utopian program of each society. Though both utopias place women at the centre of a complex social order, Rousseau’s imagined community is predicated on the self-abnegation of the heroine. In contrast, Leprince de Beaumont’s novel requires the male protagonist to re-establish his tainted virtue through marriage and the implementation of a female-dominated utopian community. Through its unmistakeable reversal of La Nouvelle Héloïse’s utopian paradigm, La Nouvelle Clarice functions as a dynamic critique of Rousseau’s seminal plot and provides a striking vision of a matriarchal utopia that simultaneously refuses closure and any limits on women’s political and social activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".