Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we sketch the portrait of the woman of letters in France from the first third of the nineteenth century. This period offers elements that allow feminine literary talents to emerge. The Guizot Law, for instance, facilitates the opening of primary schools, the beginning of the diffusion of the press creates\n\t\t\t\t potential market for apprentice authors. But the\n\t\t\t\t strongest barriers for women to write are cultural obstacles. In fact, in France, literature is sacralized and associated with power and prestige. Accepting that women can write implies accepting that the division of roles in society is questioned. The paper first focuses on who these women were, what they wrote and which were the difficulties they found to be able to write. Then, a comparison with Canadian and American\n\t\t\t\t authors is presented pointing out similarities and differences. Finally, a comparison with authors belonging to different ideological frames is offered, from the women partisans of Saint-Simon to Catholic women eager to express themselves through writing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".