MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897053262 · doi:10.3138/ecf.31.1.19

“Character Resolved into Clay”: The Toby Jug, Eighteenth-Century English Ceramics, and the Rise of Consumer Culture

2018· article· en· W2897053262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorCharacter (mathematics)ChorusSubject (documents)Power (physics)EmblemArtLiteraturePopular cultureArt historyHistorySociologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why was the Toby jug so popular? And why is this novelty item still so popular? How was this porcelain drinking vessel made, and how was this making a significant accomplishment for English potteries? The Toby jug can reveal much about how people are figured as individuals and as consumers. First, this essay sum marizes the rise of the English ceramic tradi tion, reviewing the technologies that made possible the manufacture of items like the Toby jug. Second, the essay ex plores the Toby jug as a metaphor for human sub jec tivity, with emphasis on a British national subject. The essay argues that the Toby jug is an especially power ful emblem for a consumer culture marked by deep paradoxes. Next, the jug is considered in comparison to the rise of idio syncratic characters like Laurence Sterne’s Uncle Toby, from whom it might seem to take its name. The essay concludes with a reflection on Martin Heidegger’s essay on the jug. This essay models the application of new mater ialist methodologies in an attempt to extend the concerns of material culture practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207