Incest and the Limits of Family in the Nineteenth‐Century Russian Novel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While nineteenth‐century European literature is full of sibling incest, amorous liaisons between biological sisters and brothers are virtually non‐existent in the Russian tradition. However, Russian novels are replete with characters who are in love with someone like a sibling, be it a cousin, an in‐law, or a figurative adoptee or member of the household. Scholars have shied away from discussing this love that exists on the murky boundary of family, but doing so gives us a clearer understanding of how the family and love are defined in the nineteenth‐century Russian novel. This essay explores three kinds of incest on the lateral axis: that between close kin, characters who are like siblings though not technically related, and desire that is modeled on a sibling bond. Exploring these relationships reveals two opposed tendencies: a centrifugal, expansive tendency for the family vs. a centripetal tendency for romantic love. While the family extends and Russian visions of unity strive for greater and greater inclusion, keeping love in the family circle proves the safer and more desirable choice. These two tendencies ultimately fuse, as the expansiveness of the family dictates who is familiar enough to love.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".