MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896419073 · doi:10.1525/ncl.2018.73.2.260

Review: Spirit Matters: Occult Beliefs, Alternative Religions, and the Crisis of Faith in Victorian Britain by J. Jeffrey Franklin

2018· article· en· W2896419073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katie Fry

Bibliographic record

VenueNineteenth-Century Literature · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconFaithOccultCitationHistoryArt historyMedia studiesSociologyArtReligious studiesLawTheologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| September 01 2018 Review: Spirit Matters: Occult Beliefs, Alternative Religions, and the Crisis of Faith in Victorian Britain by J. Jeffrey Franklin J. Jeffrey Franklin, Spirit Matters: Occult Beliefs, Alternative Religions, and the Crisis of Faith in Victorian Britain. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2018. Pp. xxii + 264. $49.95. Katie Fry Katie Fry University of Toronto Katie Fry is a Sessional Lecturer at the Graduate Centre for Academic Communication, University of Toronto. Her essay “Lost Time and the Heterotopic Image in W. G. Sebald’s Austerlitz” appears in Mosaic (2018), and “Inter- and Extra-textual Hauntings: Unravelling the Semantic Web of Václav Havel’s Leaving” was published in New Theatre Quarterly (2015). She is currently revising her doctoral dissertation, “The Aesthetics of Redemption in fin-de-siècle Literature and the Arts,” for publication as a book. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nineteenth-Century Literature (2018) 73 (2): 260–263. https://doi.org/10.1525/ncl.2018.73.2.260 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Katie Fry; Review: Spirit Matters: Occult Beliefs, Alternative Religions, and the Crisis of Faith in Victorian Britain by J. Jeffrey Franklin. Nineteenth-Century Literature 1 September 2018; 73 (2): 260–263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/ncl.2018.73.2.260 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentNineteenth-Century Literature Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The Regents of the University of California2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.006

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNineteenth-Century LiteratureSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207