MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765337345 · doi:10.1525/ncl.2016.70.4.427

Jane Austen’s Balls

2016· article· en· W2765337345 on OpenAlexaff
Meaghan Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueNineteenth-Century Literature · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceGazeMasculinityMale gazeScrutinyNarrativeHuman sexualityPower (physics)Gender studiesAestheticsSociologyArtPsychologyPsychoanalysisLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meaghan Malone, “Jane Austen’s Balls: Emma’s Dance of Masculinity” (pp. 427–447) Jane Austen’s scenes of dance are at the narrative heart of each of her novels, places where heroine and hero meet and flirt according to rigid prescriptions for chaste courtship. In this essay, I argue that Austen develops her characters’ sexuality within these very conventions, and uses dance as her primary means for sexualized social interaction. Austen’s ballrooms are spaces of intense erotic intimacy, sites that foreground her characters’ bodies and allow women to gaze upon men. This inversion of the male gaze is especially pronounced in Emma (1816), a novel in which the male body is systemically filtered through the eyes of women. Men become objects of female scrutiny in the ballroom as Austen highlights the social and sexual power of the female gaze. The masculine ideal that Austen subsequently creates validates female desire and facilitates reciprocity between Mr. Knightley and Emma: ultimately, each adapts to the other’s expectations of what they “ought to be.”

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)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNineteenth-Century LiteratureSame topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207