THE IMAGES OF FEMALE WRITERS IN THE “EMILY” AND “ANNE” SERIES BY L.M. MONTGOMERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the Künstlerroman may well be considered one of the genres that have blossomed most prominently in the 20th century English-Canadian literature, research investigating its poetics has remained on the fringes of literary scholarship. This paper examines L.M. Montgomery’s sophisticated use of the Künstlerinroman through her portraits of female writers in the Emily and Anne series. My goal is to explore how Montgomery’s heroines choose to narrate themselves and the world around them, how they transcend difficulties and assert their own unique perspectives. Therefore, this paper examines not only the socio-cultural environment which served as background for the creation of literature, but also the writer’s reflections regarding the process of bringing said literature into the world. Drawing on the scholarship of J. Buckley, R. Seret, E. Varsamopoulou, F. Hammill, K. Macfarlane, G.A. Guth and others, this paper aims to analyze L.M. Montgomery’s “sophisticated handling of genre” (E.R. Epperly) in greater depth and place her portraits of the female artists within a broader cultural and literary context. The question of female subjectivity, which concerns women’s perceptions of their own writing (and their fate as artists), is central to my research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".