MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022462393 · doi:10.1093/res/hgaa010

<scp>Lisa O’Connell</scp>. <i>The Origins of the English Marriage Plot: Literature, Politics and Religion in the Eighteenth Century</i>

2020· article· en· W3022462393 on OpenAlex
Alison Conway

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

VenueThe Review of English Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlot (graphics)PoliticsHegemonyHistoryPower (physics)CeremonyNegotiationLiteratureRepresentation (politics)SociologyReligious studiesState (computer science)LawArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The marriage plot has never lacked attention as an object of study; indeed, one might call it the bellwether of novel criticism, reflecting new theoretical and historical trends in eighteenth-century studies. Lisa O’Connell’s book, The Origins of the English Marriage Plot: Literature, Politics and Religion in the Eighteenth Century, highlights the contours of the ‘post-secular’ marriage plot, a plot that takes shape around the triple axes of ‘the sacred, the governmental, and the civic’ (p. 8). More particularly, O’Connell traces the mid-century novel’s engagement with the Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1754 and its efforts to consolidate Anglican hegemony and the state’s administrative power, an engagement symbolized by the novel’s representation of the Anglican wedding ceremony. As the novel established its credentials as a serious literary form—in part through its commercial success—the marriage plot came to stand as the sign of a moral-literary continuum established through its earlier theo-political negotiations....

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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