MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Baroque as a Literary Concept

2019· reference-entry· en· W2966597978 on OpenAlex
Katherine Ibbett, Anna More

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

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaroqueClassicismScholarshipLiterary scienceLiterary criticismIdeologyLiteratureThe artsStyle (visual arts)ArtAestheticsHistoryVisual artsPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The usefulness of the label “baroque” as a literary concept has been fiercely contested ever since Wölfflin first applied a term usually imagined in terms of the visual arts to literature. We will question how different traditions of literary scholarship have imagined and redrawn that relation between form and ideology, and how they have embraced, rejected, or hybridized the baroque as a label. How has the concept enabled or thwarted a comparative work thinking beyond national literary tradition? We turn to two case studies in order to find out what the concept of the literary baroque has allowed in different traditions: in France, where the early modern period has often been defined in terms of a particularly French classicism; and in Latin America, where the style became a proxy for American innovation within European traditions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Literary AnalysesFrench-language works237,207