MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229038042 · doi:10.29173/jjs71

Effusions Witty and Romantic

2022· article· en· W4229038042 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliet McMaster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Juvenilia Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSisterKnightGirlRomancePeriod (music)Art historyArtLiteratureHistorySociologyPsychologyAnthropologyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is only by undertaking comparative work that one can begin to study juvenilia as a genre. Hence my project here of linking two young writers of the same period, Jane Austen and Anna Maria Porter. These two girl authors were roughly the same age when they were writing: in their teens. Jane was born in 1775, Maria (as she was known in the Porter family) in 1780. (I call them “Jane” and “Maria” as girls, and reserve the last names for reference to their mature works.) Jane Austen’s life, 1775 to 1817, is already well known. Anna Maria Porter’s’ dates are 1780 to 1832. Her older sister Jane Porter, author of The Scottish Chiefs among other things, is perhaps better known. But Anna Maria Porter published a number of historical romances, not unlike some of Scott’s – and Scott was a neighbour and friend of the Porter family. They include, for instance, The Lake of Killarney (1804), The Knight of St. John (1817), and Octavia (1833). They were popular at home and abroad, and were often reprinted.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.023
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Juvenilia StudiesSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207