MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388409737 · doi:10.7202/1106823ar

The Nabob, National Identity, and Social Performance in Elizabeth Griffith’s A Wife in the Right (1772)

2022· article· en· W4388409737 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rose Hilton

Bibliographic record

VenueLumen Selected Proceedings from the Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeCharacter (mathematics)DramaIdentity (music)Period (music)ScholarshipContext (archaeology)Theme (computing)Reading (process)LiteratureHistoryArtSociologyPhilosophyLawTheologyAestheticsPolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elizabeth Griffith’s play A Wife in the Right (1772) features a nabob character, a British man returned from India after having made his fortune through imperial pursuits. This article explores Griffith’s use of the nabob and how the theme of national identity is linked to a discourse around the potential gap between external appearance and internal character in this drama. This article aims to contribute to the growing scholarship surrounding female dramatists in the long eighteenth century by providing an initial step in close reading this drama by Griffith in the context of philosophy and medical writing of the period. Applying, more specifically, Adam Smith’s philosophical and George Cheyne’s medical writing to a close reading of A Wife in the Right, this article reads Griffith’s nabob character and her commentary on national identity as part of a broader social performance of self in this period.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0150.031
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLumen Selected Proceedings from the Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century StudiesSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207