MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041445106 · doi:10.1093/res/hgaa058

<scp>John Wiltshire</scp>. <i>Frances Burney and the Doctors: Illness Narratives Then and Now</i>

2020· article· en· W3041445106 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Meek

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of English Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeContextualizationHistoryLiteratureReading (process)George (robot)PsychoanalysisClassicsArt historyArtLawPsychologyPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The largely unprofessionalized medical world of the long eighteenth century, as some scholars have noted, is characterized by a variety of converging tendencies, including an increasing interest in experiences of illness, a widespread lay consumption of medical knowledge, a continued, if tentative, acceptance of women’s medical contributions, and a productive fluidity between the realms of literature and medicine. John Wiltshire’s Frances Burney and the Doctors: Illness Narratives Then and Now provides an excellent contribution to such scholarly discussions through a reading and contextualization of four key medically-themed episodes in the extensive letters and diaries of Frances Burney (1752-1840): the state of George III’s court as the king descended into madness (1788-89); the inoculation for smallpox of Burney’s son (1797); Burney’s harrowing experience of mastectomy (1811); and the decline and death of her husband Alexandre D’Arblay (1818). Expanding on understandings of Burney as a gifted diarist, letter-writer, and novelist, Wiltshire paints Burney as an exceptionally insightful medical observer and as a key progenitor of the modern genre of pathography. The book thus provides important contributions to the field of Burney studies and to the history of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century medicine.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of English StudiesSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207