MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782049222 · doi:10.3138/ecf.30.2.175

Deathly Sentimentalism: Sarah Fielding, Henry Mackenzie

2018· article· en· W2782049222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan C. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPoliticsAdventureResistance (ecology)LiteratureExpression (computer science)Isolation (microbiology)PsychoanalysisPhilosophyAestheticsHistoryArt historyArtEpistemologyPsychologyLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regarding the eighteenth-century sentimental novel, critics have long argued that sentiment works to bond subjects and to accommodate subjects to society. The sentimental novel also teaches the reader how to die. Looking to Sarah Fielding’s The Adventures of David Simple (1744, 1753) and Henry Mackenzie’s The Man of Feeling (1771), I argue that the eighteenth-century sentimental novel deploys death as a figure for thinking about political critique and its limits. On their deathbeds, characters utter politically charged speeches, but cannot act upon their words, such that sentimental critique is both powerful and inoperative. Along the contours of a deathly sentimentalism there are slippages between resistance and passivity, between isolation and socialization. The sentimental novel bespeaks, in its emphasis upon mortality and its vexations, the difficulty of accommodating political expression in rhythm with the momentum of modern history.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207