Bibliographic record
Abstract
This examines Canadian director Patricia Rozema’s 1999 adaptation of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park and British director Andrea Arnold’s 2011 adaptation of Wuthering Heights, focusing on the adaptations’ extrapolation from the suggestions of slavery in the novels in order to foreground it within the cinematic narrative. This chapter argues that these films represent acts of salvage through foregrounding slavery as an essential context, allowing narratives suggested or buried within the novels to rise to the surface. Problematic associations of white women and enslaved people surface in the films, in particular, requiring scrutiny. The chapter also reads the two adaptations in relation to hospitality, given the class-inflected and racialised relations within the narratives of accepting ‘strangers’ into the family homes whose names double as the novels’ and films’ titles. Further, the chapter analyses the films not only in relation to the nineteenth-century contexts in which the original novels were produced but also in the context of their moments of cinematic production: namely Mansfield Park’s use of Kirby Hall in Northamptonshire to represent Mansfield Park, implicitly drawing attention to the slavery-based wealth of English country houses; and Wuthering Heights’s semiotic invocation of white supremacist politics in Britain in general and Yorkshire in particular.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".