MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309845386 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n1p77

The Myth of Rape in Eighteenth-Century Literature

2022· article· en· W4309845386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zakarya Aldukhayil

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphraMythologyFace (sociological concept)Order (exchange)State (computer science)PoliticsHistoryPublic sphereGender studiesSpace (punctuation)SociologyPolitical scienceLawCriminologyLiteratureClassicsArtSocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rape as propaganda is the main focus of this study. Feminist scholars and activists have investigated rape in English history and discussed how this term was used by men to dominate women and spread fear amongst them. The patriarchal society of the early eighteenth-century England used rape in order to limit the freedom of female movement. Women were led to believe that their state of safety lies within their willingness to trade submission to a man for protection from all other men. This study investigates attitudes of rape and near rape attempts which were used in three seventeenth and eighteenth-century texts; Aphra Behn’s The Rover (1677), Eliza Haywood’s The History of Miss Betsy Thoughtless (1751), and Frances Burney’s novel Evelina (1778). These attitudes were presented in order to portray different ideas such as a critique of the patriarchal society, to warn women of the dangers they might face out of the domestic sphere and perks of abiding by the social conduct, and also to encourage women to follow the mandates expected of women of quality. These three text are evidence that rape was commonly discussed as a method to warn women to keep out of public space prior to the nineteenth century.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207