MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382044573 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2022.a900609

Editor's Note

2022· article· en· W4382044573 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipPoetryAmateurCONTESTSubject (documents)Period (music)Variety (cybernetics)ArtLiteratureAestheticsHistoryArt historyLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editor's Note Christopher Keep This issue's forum considers one of the most hotly debated figures in the study of Victorian literature and culture: the Poetess. Some scholars have argued that the Poetess was a cultural category that tended to valorize a limited repertoire of poetic modes, affective states, and models of authorial self-fashioning, and, in so doing, occluded the aesthetic variety and cultural richness of women's verse during the nineteenth century. Others have perceived in the figure a latent critical charge—a term which, in its very instability, opened up the radical potential of Victorian women's writing to contest the distinctions between public and private, reason and emotion, professional and amateur. As assembled by our guest editor, Marjorie Stone, the essays gathered here take up these debates anew. They range from studies of many of the major women poets of the period, including Felicia Hemans, EBB, and Christina Rossetti, to writers whose work has only more recently become the subject of sustained scholarly analysis, such as Michael Field and Frances Brown, "the Blind Poet of Ulster." The essays not only offer fresh and provocative insights into the verse of these authors but also highlight their significant and often under-appreciated contributions to Victorian print and visual culture more broadly. The Poetess, we learn, helped set in motion a set of cultural and aesthetic provocations that continue to resonate today in "Insta poets" such as Rupi Kaur and Hissa Hilal. An opportunity both to cast an eye back on the scholarship of the past and to clear a path toward the future, this remarkable collection of essays shows us that the Poetess has much more to contribute to our understanding of Victorian literature and culture. This issue marks an important addition to our book review section. Monographs and multi-authored books have and will continue to play an important part in the dissemination of research in Victorian studies, but with the advent of the digital humanities (DH) has come new and diverse modes of scholarship, modes that eschew the codex book in favour of digital archives, quantitative analyses, visualizations of large image sets, 3-D modelling of historical artifacts, and many other "born digital" approaches to the study of literature and culture. Despite the unquestionable contribution of such methods, DH projects have not been the subject of the kind of critical review that books have long received. With this issue, Victorian Review seeks to remedy this oversight. Constance Crompton's review of Digital Victorian Periodical Poetry (dvpp.uvic.ca) is the first in what we hope to be a regular feature in our review section. The winning essay of the 2022 Hamilton Prize competition is "You Have Only Yourself to Blame": Mind and Reason in Anne Brontë's Tenant of Wildfell [End Page v] Hall," by Rebecca Sheppard (UBC). The committee would also like to recognize the runner-up: "The Culinary and the Colonial in G.F. Atkinson's Curry and Rice" by Meghna Sapui (University of Florida).We are pleased to publish both these exceptional contributions to the field of Victorian studies in the current issue. The Hamilton Prize is awarded to the best essay submitted to our annual competition by a graduate student. Our grateful thanks go to our judges: Nathan Hensley, Pamela Gilbert, and Andrea Korda. Finally, it is my great pleasure to announce a new addition to our editorial committee. Richa Dwor is a specialist in Anglo-Jewish literature and culture who teaches in the Department of English at Douglas College. She is the editor of the anthology Religious Feeling (Routledge Historical Resource on Victorian Religion, 2021) and the author of Jewish Feeling: Difference and Affect in Nineteenth-Century Jewish Women's Writing (Bloomsbury, 2015) and numerous articles in journals such as Literature and Theology, Partial Answers, English Literature in Transition, and Leeds Working Papers in Victorian Studies as well as two entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (on Charlotte Montefiore and Judith Montefiore). We are delighted to have her bring her wide-ranging expertise in nineteenth-century literature and culture to our committee's deliberations. Welcome, Richa! [End Page vi] Copyright © 2022 Victorian Studies 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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207