MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946177761 · doi:10.1080/0013838x.2019.1601417

Gothic Misdirections: Troubling the Trauma Fiction Paradigm in Pat Barker’s<i>Double Vision</i>

2019· article· en· W2946177761 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashlee Joyce

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterrogationClichéSubject matterPsychoanalysisImpulse (physics)LiteratureSubject (documents)AestheticsArtHistoryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trauma theory has traditionally positioned itself as an ethical mode of critique. Theorists have since criticized the development, born out of trauma theory’s ethical imperative, of a dominant trauma fiction aesthetic seeking to mimic the inaccessibility of traumatic memory, advocating the use of genres like the Gothic to voice otherwise unspeakable subject matter. However, implicating the Gothic in trauma theory’s ethical project ignores the voyeuristic impulse that drives audiences to seek out the Gothic’s pleasurable excesses. These tensions collide in Pat Barker’s Double Vision (2003), whose seemingly clichéd use of Gothic conventions belies a sophisticated metafictional interrogation of trauma fiction’s ethical complexities.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.070
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish StudiesSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207