MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787050053 · doi:10.3138/cras.2017.026

Re-Visioning American Literary Naturalism

2018· article· en· W2787050053 on OpenAlex
Marc Egnal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNaturalismWhite (mutation)ProletariatLiteraturePhilosophyPeriod (music)HistoryAestheticsArtEpistemologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, two characteristics define literary naturalism, and both are problematic. One is the emphasis on four male writers: Theodore Dreiser, Frank Norris, Stephen Crane, and Jack London. This focus emerged in the 1930s and stemmed from biases against white women and African Americans. The other defining trait is the temporal reach of naturalism. Extrapolating from traits in the works of Dreiser et al., this school now includes the “proletarian writers” of the 1930s and many recent authors. This article presents a new definition, one that emphasizes the distinct nature of the period from 1893 to 1913, when authors and social scientists believed that immutable “laws” of heredity and environment determined human behaviour. This approach broadens the naturalist canon during the classic era, 1893–1913, dethroning those four white males, and excludes most later works.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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