MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242109856 · doi:10.3138/cras-s036-01-04

Mass Appeal(s): Representations of Women’s Public Speech in Suffrage Literature

2006· article· en· W4242109856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maia Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuffrageAppealPoliticsConceptualizationNegotiationSociologyPublic sphereGender studiesPolitical scienceMedia studiesHistoryLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article considers the emergence of women into the public sphere during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries via portrayals of women’s public speech in three literary texts associated with the suffrage movement—Laura J. Curtis’s Christine: Woman’s Trials and Triumphs (1856), Elizabeth Robins’s The Convert (1907), and The Sturdy Oak: A Composite Novel of American Politics (1917), edited by Elizabeth Jordan. All three novels depict members of the suffrage movement negotiating tensions between private and public, speaker and audience, leader and led, and individual and crowd or collective. Read together, the novels register a transition from an early focus on the female public speaker as an individual set apart from the crowd—and thus as a single, authoritative voice—to an increasing interest in the dynamics of an integrated relationship between speaker and crowd, which ultimately results in the development of a more democratically informed conceptualization of political action and appeal. In this way, the novels offer valuable insight into women’s growing understanding, during the period, of what it means to organize a mass movement and, in a more general sense, to participate in public space.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207