Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the nineteenth-century analogic tradition exemplified by Walter Pater, Honoré de Balzac, and Henry James, this essay considers the conjunction of literature and architecture in Edith Wharton's oeuvre, and particularly her custom of relating novelistic form to architectural design. Her bestselling novel The House of Mirth and her non-fiction work The Writing of Fiction are identified as literary counterparts to Wharton's first book, The Decoration of Houses, a manual of interior design co-authored with architect Ogden Codman. Given Wharton's lifelong interest in architecture and material culture, this essay suggests that she conceived of the modern novel as a product of design, as primarily architectural or constructed space. Windows, thresholds, and furniture, as well as libraries and other interior spaces, figure centrally in her work. The confluence of literary and architectural principles is featured in The House of Mirth, a novel in which the author's skill is equivalent to the architect's, and where the decorative allure of protagonist Lily Bart renders her disturbingly analogous to a rare book. By examining key library scenes in the novel, this essay offers new insight on the decorative appeal of Wharton's work while calling attention to an underlying ethical dimension of her literary architecture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".