MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388184111 · doi:10.1093/res/hgad094

<scp>Jill Rappoport</scp>. <i>Imagining Women’s Property in Victorian Fiction</i>

2023· article· en· W4388184111 on OpenAlexaffabout
Noa Reich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of English Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryArt historyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Imagining Women’s Property in Victorian Fiction, Jill Rappoport offers a compelling reconsideration of the way Victorian fiction engaged with the significant legal reforms to married women’s property that occurred between 1856 and 1882. Rappoport persuasively argues that, whereas these reforms have typically been viewed in terms of their effects on married women, the fiction of this period explored their far broader implications both for notions of ownership and for a wider network of familial relations. Across its five chapters, the book develops nuanced analyses of Charles Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend (1864–1865), Elizabeth Gaskell’s Wives and Daughters (1866), novels by Anthony Trollope (late 1860s, 1870s), George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda (1876), and Margaret Oliphant’s Hester (1883), and discusses many other novels of the period. Rappoport demonstrates how these novels grappled with the reforms’ far-reaching and often unsettling ramifications for traditional models of property and family, as well as for women’s economic agency, while also developing alternative, extra-legal models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1900.065

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of English StudiesSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207