MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323838258 · doi:10.3138/utq.92.1.03

Fictional Country Houses of the 1980s: Isabel Colegate, Kazuo Ishiguro, and V.S. Naipaul

2023· article· en· W4323838258 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J. Russell Perkin

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireHistoryColonialismFlourishingLiteratureVariety (cybernetics)MythologyRepresentation (politics)Reading (process)AsideArtAncient historyLawPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The renewed interest in English country houses in the 1980s was part of a focus on the idea of “English heritage,” and it was accompanied by a flourishing of historical novels and costume dramas. In the twenty-first century, scholars have investigated the links between country houses and the British Empire. A careful reading of Isabel Colegate’s The Shooting Party (1980), Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day (1988), and V.S. Naipaul’s The Enigma of Arrival (1987) shows that these writers took a critical view of the myth of the English country house. Each of them in some way addresses the colonial and imperial connections of the country house, and they each extend a venerable literary tradition in a manner that addresses the concerns of the late twentieth century and anticipates those of the twenty-first. The three novelists make use of a variety of perspectives in their representation of the country house, with significant attention to the experience of servants. Colegate writes out of a personal knowledge of the upper class from her own family background, while Ishiguro and Naipaul are English writers who were born in other parts of the world, giving them distinctive standpoints from which to consider English history and society.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.164 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207