MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036884319 · doi:10.3138/ecf.32.4.559

“Whither doth this violent Passion hurry us?”: Hysterical Language and Desiring Women in Henry Fielding’s <i>Joseph Andrews</i>

2020· article· en· W3036884319 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathleen Tamayo Alves

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Emotions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionsHysteriaDepictionPsychoanalysisFeelingPassionPerspective (graphical)LiteratureExistentialismAestheticsPhilosophyPsychologyArtSocial psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews (1742) works within amatory and comic modes, and engages with eighteenth-century medical discourses of hysteria and the nerves. Lady Booby’s emotions, fashioned in the amatory mode, illustrate how women’s bodies were culturally overdetermined as incapable of practicing restraint; the novel’s depiction of her feelings reveal how the overlapping discourses of rigid virtue and medicine produced emotional, bodily, and existential distress. Emotional expressions of unfulfilled desire become entangled with the discourse of hysteria, for both are rooted in the mechanics of the passions and the perceived inability of a woman’s body to manage emotions. Amatory fiction’s focus on the body and its feelings makes it an especially fertile space for hysteria to rise to the level of cultural metaphor that posits women’s bodies as inherently pathological. These expressions of passionate excess centre woman as the bodily theatre in which the philosophical debates of emotion and reason are staged.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.031
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicHistory of Emotions ResearchFrench-language works237,207