MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247171544 · doi:10.3138/ecf.24.1.105

Jane Austen as Editor: Letters on Fiction and the Cancelled Chapters of <i>Persuasion</i>

2011· article· en· W4247171544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katie Gemmill

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionExtant taxonNephew and nieceReading (process)LiteratureOrder (exchange)PhilosophyHistoryArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persuasion is the only one of Jane Austen's published novels for which there is extant manuscript material: the first draft of the final two chapters. Within fewer than three weeks of writing these chapters, Austen partially cancelled and partially revised them in order to produce the final three chapters of the published version. Persuasion is thus singular in her oeuvre, providing the only opportunity to see precisely how she edited a draft to turn it into a publishable piece of fiction. In this article, I perform a comparative reading of the cancelled and published chapters of Persuasion, observing how Austen's novelistic principles shaped her editorial practices. Her dissatisfaction with the original chapters correlates directly to her theory of novel-writing, as articulated in her five letters on fiction of 1814 to her niece Anna Lefroy. Austen cancelled and revised the end of Persuasion with the clearest of intentions: to produce a novel that better satisfied her stringent standards for novelistic form.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207