MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382044645 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2022.a900621

Poetess Futures: Unsettling Victorian Poetry at Scale

2022· article· en· W4382044645 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alison Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryLyricsLiteraturePrint cultureFutures contractNew englandHistoryArtPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poetess Futures:Unsettling Victorian Poetry at Scale Alison Chapman (bio) Given the massive quantity of poems that Victorians read in serial print, the range of poets conventionally associated with the poetess seems extremely limited. This article considers scaling out the poetess in Digital [End Page 190] Victorian Periodical Poetry (DVPP), which currently includes 15,525 poems and 3,482 poets from 21 Victorian periodicals (Chapman 2022). Although "poetess" was often synonymous with woman poet for the Victorians, as Susan Brown argues, it was an unstable term. And Victorian associations between woman poet and the poetess, and between women's poetry and poetess poems, were fraught for women writers (Brown 180–82). How might we detect a generous range of poetess poets in a digital corpus? Can scaling out the poetess redefine that historical and critical category? DVPP includes many unfamiliar women poets publishing in two literary annuals intimately associated with poetess poetry, Forget-Me-Not (1822–47) and The Keepsake (1827–57), such as Florence Margaret Wilson (Chapman, "Wilson, Florence Margaret"). Wilson was connected with metropolitan literary society but lived a precarious life as a governess in St. Petersburg (once shipwrecked on a journey home to London), the owner of a stationery shop in Victoria, British Columbia (just a few miles from where I write), and then of a saloon in the British Columbian Cariboo. As a poetess poet, her credentials seem excellent: five poems in The Keepsake on sentimental subjects, as well as two poetry volumes (Lyrics for Leisure Hours [1842], Boudoir Lyrics [1844]). Wilson's "Dreams," from the 1850 Keepsake, shares features familiar from poetess poetry: sentimental subject matter, formulaic stanzas, lyrical melodiousness, effusion. Her socio-economic precarity—a common poetess attribute—lies uncomfortably alongside her poetry. The extent of poetess poetry clearly remains to be fully charted. DVPP contains 3,576 periodical poems authored by 718 female poets.1 There are many more women poets not yet identified (and unidentifiable) whose authorship is disguised behind unsigned and pseudonymous poems. But of the women periodical poets we do know about, the extent of their poetry allows for quantitative searching. How can we find other poetesses like Wilson? There are two ways to expand the search through DVPP. First, searching the index for poems by women in periodicals known to be major print venues for poetess poetry, especially The Keepsake and the Forget-Me-Not. DVPP identifies 105 women poets in these annuals, publishing 498 poems overall.2 The majority of these women annual poets are unfamiliar. Does publishing poetry in a literary annual with a female signature automatically affiliate poems and poet with the poetess? DVPP person records provide biographical metadata that give further granularity, such as nationality, and indicate the wide range of periodical titles in which these women published (in addition to the annuals), suggesting that scaling up the poetess brings historical nuance. But such discoveries rely upon a major conventional definition of poetess poetry—poems by women in literary annuals—which is problematic because of the quantity of poems without authorship attribution. In Forget-Me-Not and Keepsake alone there are 257 pseudonymous poems and 155 unsigned poems, not all identified or identifiable by author.3 Poetess discovery that relies on gender is inherently limited—ironically, given [End Page 191] the hyperfeminine basis of the poetess. This fact reveals a major fissure in the poetess at scale as a hyperfeminized category and also questions how Victorian readers identified the poetess in mass serial print when so many poets disguised their authorship. Did Victorian readers associate specific poetic features with the poetess, allowing them to categorize poetry without a female authorship attribution? Or was poetess poetry as a category more recognizable when signed with a female name? A satirical 1833 Keepsake poem by Marguerite Gardiner (Countess of Blessington), "Stock in Trade of Modern Poetesses," suggests both associations were at play, although her emphasis is more on trite poetic devices than on female authorship. Gardiner's extensive listing of stock tropes also discloses how poetess poets were acutely self-reflexive and sophisticated about poetess conventions; indeed, as an editor of The Keepsake, Gardiner herself is both a sharp critic as well as a major distributor of...

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science 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 score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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