MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753401165 · doi:10.5539/ells.v7n3p48

The Psychological Effect of Political and Social Injustice on the Individual in William Godwin’s Caleb Williams

2017· article· en· W2753401165 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sumaya M. Alhaj Mohammad

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsInjusticeAdventureParanoiaPsychoanalysisCreaturesPolitical instabilitySociologyPsychologyCharacter (mathematics)Social psychologyCriminologyLawHistoryPolitical scienceNatural (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at exploring William Godwin’s Things as They Are; or The Adventures of Caleb Williams (1794) as a social and political novel that sheds light on the psychology of the eighteenth-century English individual. It discusses the dangers of injustice and proves that bad laws can be destructive in the sense that they cause people to live unstably as they suffer from psychological disorders, such as paranoia. The study refers to some political and social facts of the eighteenth-century, to contextualize the suffering of the individual. It emphasizes that the manipulation of laws creates an unbalanced social life; and thus, it leads to psychological instability. The study, then, connects Foucault’s ideas of surveillance to reveal how tyranny is evil for both the dominant and the dominated who live miserably. This dichotomy is investigated in the study mainly through the characters of Falkland, the murderer and Caleb Williams, the protagonist who searches for the truth.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207