The Aesthetics of Senescence: Aging, Population, and the 19th-Century British Novel, by Andrea Charise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Aesthetics of Senescence: Aging, Population, and the 19th-Century British Novel constitutes a thorough study of the evolution of the biopolitics (a theoretical framing that places the biological life of individuals at the center, engaging with it as a political problem) of older age and its literary representations.It offers a highly relevant contribution to scholars of age studies, health humanities, and literary studies of the nineteenth century.Charise's work on age as a category of analysis fits within a larger body of scholarship in age studies, concerned with issues attached to the construction, evolution, self-reflection, and self-(re)presentation of identity (see Crossley; Gullette; Henneberg; Looser; Yallop).It explores the ways in which nineteenthcentury British literature allows authors to reflect -and influencecontemporary perceptions of older age from an intellectual, social, and demographic standpoint and investigates how novelists consider population within society as a (bio)political problem.With her background in geriatric health research and her role as a major contributor to the development of the field of health humanities -she has developed the first undergraduate program in health humanities in Canada and is the founding editor of the "Studies in Health Humanities" book series (2020-present) -Charise brings together literary critical analysis, age studies, gender studies, and health studies in her assessment, in what is a fruitful, interdisciplinary approach.The book is structured into 5 chapters that map out the chronological evolution of the aesthetics of senescence from the literature preceding Malthus' Essay on the Principles of Population (1798) to the fin de siècle.In its introduction, Charise considers the 1798 Godwin-Malthus debate as a key event in the shift in the perception and representation of older age away from a religious
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".