MétaCan
Menu

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 Encyclopedia of Victorian Literature · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Emotions Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)PsycheVictorian eraVictorian literatureRealismAffect theoryPsychologySociologyAestheticsEpistemologyLiteraturePsychoanalysisSocial psychologyArtPhilosophyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expansion of scientific and medical knowledge in the nineteenth century led to the development of new ways of understanding the human psyche and emotions, in what, by the end of the century, would be termed affect. Greater understanding of the functioning of the nervous system and principles of evolutionary biology led to an increasing emphasis on the physiological experience in theories of emotion. These new theories were debated widely in Victorian public discourse and challenged by conservative thinkers who considered them secular and irreligious. The influence of this broadening interest in understanding the experience of emotion is reflected in Victorian fiction, especially in sensation fiction and in the development of psychological realism. The revival of interest in affect theory in the late twentieth century has produced renewed interest in Victorian concepts of affect and in the affective content of Victorian literature.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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