MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782111578 · doi:10.3138/ecf.30.2.195

Mellifluent Sexuality: Female Intimacy in Ann Radcliffe’s <i>The Romance of the Forest</i>

2018· article· en· W2782111578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeremy Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLutePleasureHuman sexualityRomanceNarrativeArtReading (process)DepictionLiteraturePsychologySociologyGender studiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pamphlets like Onania (1716), whose rate of reprinting exploded during the eighteenth century, became docents for ironically teaching and demonstrating erotic pleasures to readers, rather than expurgating them, as intended. As a result, the possibilities for pleasure reading were varied and many. I offer Ann Radcliffe’s novel The Romance of the Forest (1791), as an extension of those autoerotic reading pleasures for an eighteenth-century audience. Radcliffe’s novel veils the possibility of a masturbatory narrative with music and instrumentality. The lute, an instrument with diverse and erotic resonances in the eighteenth century, mediates these practices for Radcliffe’s two heroines. In meditating on the lute’s depiction, I trace the early modern history of the lute in literature and art, reflect on its connections to embodiment and erotic performance, and consider the ways musical performance becomes a site of female intimacy and pleasure, which complicates readings of public and private spaces. For Clara and Adeline, the autoerotic lute enables the blossoming of transgressive sexuality, despite the heteronormativity offered by the novel’s ending.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207