MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802301088 · doi:10.1111/lic3.12459

Neo‐Victorian f(r)iction: Critical conversations and fictional narratives

2018· article· en· W2802301088 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterature Compass · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeGlobePostmodernismRigourScope (computer science)Victorian literatureLiteratureVictorian eraSociologyAestheticsHistoryPsychologyPsychoanalysisMedia studiesArtEpistemologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article explores how neo‐Victorian critics are drawn to investigate the f(r)iction between the past and to the present with a desire to understand the Victorian past, then to articulate its importance to the postmodern present. Articles in this special issue by Sarah E. Maier, Anna Jones, Marie‐Louise Kohlke, and Mark Llewellyn seek to widen the scope of these conversations, to find other neo‐Victorianisms across the globe and investigate narratives in manga, television, and true crime. The aim is to question how boundaries between high and low break down and consider what happens when intellectual rigour meets non‐traditional genres found within Neo‐Victorian narratives.

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 categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · 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