MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092571369

Back to the Future: Edwardian Comedy and Progressive Politics

2018· dissertation· en· W3092571369 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rachel McArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoPrinceton University
KeywordsComedyPoliticsHistoryArtLiteraturePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Edwardian period is often figured as a garden party broken up by the First World War. Looking back on the early twentieth century from the perspective of the twenty first, a different, strikingly contemporary picture emerges: amidst social and technological change, world capitals were haunted by the threat of instability and economic inequality, while the political left faced urgent questions about its continued relevance. Contrary to the image of the period as complacent on the brink of disaster, my dissertation asserts that the Edwardians were deeply invested in building a better future through both political reform and literary comedy. Both comedy and progressive reform look toward the future; in both cases, the Edwardians negotiated between convention and innovation to attempt to create a more equitable future. The dissertation ultimately illustrates the crucial role of the period in literary history and how its lessons may inform our own, which it much resembles. In order to do so, my readings of specifically Edwardian texts are situated in relation to larger historical narratives of both comedy as a genre and political reform. The first chapter reads George Meredith’s “Essay on Comedy” (1877) and The Egoist (1879) alongside Gladstonian Liberal reforms. Like those interventions, the “Essay” looks toward beneficial changes within existing traditions, while The Egoist puts them into practice. The second chapter analyzes George Bernard Shaw’s Major Barbara (1905; 1907) alongside Edwardian discussions of social welfare. Shaw’s fictional Perivale St Andrews, patterned on contemporary company towns, critiques the shortcomings of Edwardian New Liberalism’s approach to a better future. The third chapter situates E.M. Forster’s Howards End (1910) in relation to the cascading crises engendered by the 1909 “People’s Budget.” Like its political moment, Forster’s novel makes failure the precondition of ameliorative possibility, a vision Forster carried beyond the writing of fiction. The persistence of Forsterian concerns is further examined in the final chapter on Zadie Smith’s NW (2012). Foregrounding Smith’s use of Forsterian elements to critique both the limitations of Forster’s vision and the attenuated futurity of neoliberalism, this final chapter asserts the resonances of the Edwardian period with our contemporary moment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207