MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787227793 · doi:10.3138/cras.2017.025

From the “L Chamber” to the Wood-Pile: Negotiating Space in Harriet E. Wilson’s <i>Our Nig</i>

2018· article· en· W2787227793 on OpenAlex
Miranda A. Green-Barteet

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
TopicAutobiographical and Biographical Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityAgency (philosophy)NegotiationServantPower (physics)Michel foucaultSociologyCategorizationSpace (punctuation)PhilosophyAestheticsEpistemologyLawLinguisticsPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial sciencePhysicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the ways Harriet E. Wilson’s autobiographical protagonist Frado interacts with various spaces represented in Our Nig. Specifically, I argue that Frado’s attempts to claim subjectivity and agency over herself are contingent upon the architectural spaces she occupies. By identifying several sites as interstitial—that is, as spaces that defy easy categorization—Frado gains some power over her life and resists the oppressive system that limits her to a marginalized position. I further argue that Frado uses interstitial locations to challenge her own interstitial positions, both as an unpaid servant and a free biracial woman of New England.

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 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 score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.245 · 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