MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Gaps: Four Archetypes of 1790s Gowns

2016· report· en· W2753278688 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchetypeModernityIdealismPeriod (music)PoliticsTransition (genetics)AestheticsHistorySociologyArtEpistemologyLiteratureLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is a component of a larger project investigating a particular moment of transition in the history of fashion, the 1790s in Europe and America, asking how, in an age imbued with idealism, fashion's visual rhetoric could reflect and effect changes in society. In order to analyze dress of this period, the first step was to find, identify and carefully examine surviving gowns and visual sources in France, England, Scotland and the United States of America to reassess the stereotypical understanding of this complex decade that marked the beginning of modernity in dress. A micro-level analysis, the research addresses the gap between the conventional eighteenth-century silhouette to the neoclassical one and isolates four different archetypes of gowns. It provides a base from which to apply a more theorized macro-level analysis that will observe the interactions of dress within the political, philosophical, artistic and economic changes taking place in society.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.394
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Studies of British IslesFrench-language works237,207