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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that the psychological mechanism of disavowal is at the heart of modernist conceptions of difference from the Victorians. It identifies the focal point of this disavowal in the overt repudiation of spiritualism and spectrality in key pronouncements by Joseph Conrad and Virginia Woolf. By reading those pronouncements closely, and comparing them to the use of spectrality and spiritualism in these writers’ novels, this paper argues that these key foundational figures of literary modernism enact a powerful case of disavowal. Though they explicitly deplore the use of the supernatural, Conrad and Woolf rely upon it in their fiction. This specific dual disavowal – of the Victorian precedent and of a lingering supernaturalism in their own work – is not just limited to Conrad and Woolf, but, I argue, informs the larger means by which the modernists strove to understand and articulate their break with the Victorians. Disavowal of the supernatural stands at the origin of modernist self-conception, anchoring the challenge to “make it new” directly in a matrix of ethico- aesthetic concerns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it