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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miranda A. Green-Barteet

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.041
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicAutobiographical and Biographical WritingFrench-language works237,207