MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378603661 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2022.0031

Spoiler Alert: The Sensation Novel and Victorian Criticism

2022· article· en· W4378603661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clayton Carlyle Tarr

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismSensationLiteratureHistoryThe InternetAestheticsPsychologyArtComputer scienceCognitive psychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spoiler, a persistent concern of the internet age, has roots in the mid-nineteenth century during the dawn of new media. In the early 1860s, Wilkie Collins and Mary Elizabeth Braddon asked periodical reviewers not to reveal the plots of their novels. These requests elicited responses ranging from begrudging compliance to outright refusal. Not only had critics become accustomed to providing summaries, but they were also inclined to disparage sensation novels. Charles Dickens, whose plots were also revealed by reviewers, adjusted his approach in Our Mutual Friend, his final complete novel, by introducing a mystery that was easily solvable, allowing him both to attract the audience for sensation fiction and to disguise more significant social commentary.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient 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 score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207