MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249664507 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2018.0000

Editor’s Note

2018· article· en· W4249664507 on OpenAlex
Christopher Keep

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural History and Identity Formation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipLesbianTransgenderPrivilege (computing)Human sexualityGender studiesQueerQueer theorySociologyNarrativeIdentity (music)IntersectionalityCultural studiesFeminismMedia studiesAestheticsLiteratureArtLawPolitical scienceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editor’s Note Christopher Keep Victorian studies has long been at the forefront of scholarly studies of gender and sexuality. From Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s groundbreaking examination of the anxiety of authorship experienced by women writers as they confronted the lack of female forebears to Eve Sedgwick’s analysis of the homosocial bonds upon which male privilege is so precariously predicated, our field has produced some of the most widely influential works in feminist and queer theory. This legacy makes it both puzzling and troubling that our discipline has been relatively slow to take up, in a sustained manner, the vibrant scholarship that has emerged from transgender studies over the past three decades and the ways in which it, as Susan Stryker writes, “willfully disrupts the privileged family narratives that favor sexual identity labels (like gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual) over the gender categories (like man and woman) that enable desire to take shape and find its aim” (212). Our special issue on “trans Victorians” hopes to kick-start this long overdue engagement. Guest edited by Ardel Haefele-Thomas, this collection of essays draws together research in cultural history, literary studies, and cinema and performance studies and asks our readers to consider the ways in which trans theory compels us to rethink the sex-gender system of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The forum for the Spring 2013 issue (39.1) of Victorian Review, “Built Victorian Environments,” examined architectural projects as diverse as the first public toilet and Brunel’s tunnel under the Thames. In the forum for this issue, we revisit the spaces and structures Victorians created but focus on public art. In essays on both extant and lost works, from within and beyond the United Kingdom, our essayists share insight into art’s presence in public spaces and into the ways that installations, such as monuments, expressed but also shaped public sentiment. We are delighted to welcome several new members to our Editorial Advisory Board: Lara Karapenko (Carroll University), Tina Choi (York University), Monica Flegel (Lakehead University), John Miller (University of Sheffield), and Tabitha Sparks (McGill University). Advisory board members serve as an important sounding board for the journal’s editorial policy and assist with the mentoring of emergent scholars through our Hamilton Prize competition. We are very fortunate to have such highly respected scholars, with so many demands on their time, join our board. As we welcome these new board members, we must also say a goodbye. Daniel M. Martin has been Victorian Review’s book review editor since [End Page v] volume 41 (2015), keeping track of the often overwhelming number of new books published in the field and ensuring that they are sent to the best possible reviewers. Under his expert guidance, the journal’s book review section has remained one of the most respected and widely read in the field. We wish him all the best as he strikes out in new directions. Works Cited Gilbert, Sandra M., and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale UP, 1979. Google Scholar Sedgwick, Eve Kosofksy. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. Columbia UP, 1985. Google Scholar Stryker, Susan. “Transgender Studies: Queer Theory’s Evil Twin.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, 2004, pp. 212–15. Google Scholar Copyright © 2019 Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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