MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395040316 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2023.a925217

Teaching “Victorian” Literature: A Reflection

2023· article· en· W4395040316 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pamela K. Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Literature and Humor Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)HistorySociologyComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching "Victorian" Literature: A Reflection Pamela K. Gilbert (bio) If someone had asked me ten years ago whether I had fully taken on board insights about race and empire in my teaching of nineteenth-century literature, I would have said yes. That would have been both honest and untrue. I taught every text with attention to its imperial investments, its mentions of the larger imperial world, and its often unspoken dependence on imperial goods and the global imperial market. And yet. I think I thought of race and empire as one of several foundational issues. It was only in doing more work on the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, during which slavery and race were more nakedly at the centre of philosophical discourse, and then in reading Sylvia Wynter, that I began to attend to race as a colonial and imperial construct, as not a but the foundational problem of enlightenment culture, its economies and modes of thought—a way of dividing the human world that reorganized everything ruthlessly in its path. And still, although this informed my teaching, it didn't reorganize it at the foundation. In reading Ronjaunee Chatterjee, Alicia Mireles Christoff, and Amy R. Wong's "Undisciplining Victorian Studies" and nodding along at many moments, it was this relatively unsurprising sentence that prompted an epiphanic shift: "we are not advocating for an accumulative project that would leave the boundaries of VS untouched and intact. . . . [W]e move to undiscipline—radically rethink and even unmake—VS itself." [End Page 43] It suddenly struck me that this, precisely, was my problem. In fact, I had unconsciously thought of the impact of these insights, yes, as transformative but still fundamentally as additions to an existing structure. When I first began teaching courses that included such titles as Women's Literature or Literature by Authors of Colour in the United States, I remember a well-meaning senior colleague telling me that he was relieved that he didn't have to squeeze a woman's novel into his course on the American dream, because that was now taken care of by the curricular reform that required students to take one such course. It occurred to me that perhaps I was replicating this same error. It doesn't help that many of us are teaching within curricula designed during a period in which literature was delineated by nation and period, often in institutions with shared course numbers and descriptions that contribute to limiting the ways we think across these quite artificial divides. Nineteenth-century authors published (or were published or pirated) all over the world, in English and in translation, and in turn read across various languages and borders. (See, for example, Undisciplining Victorian Studies lesson plans on East Asia [Lesson Plans], the inclusion of which demonstrates these transcultural readings/references.) Yet for years, we taught British literature as though Britain (or maybe even just London) was its own planet, utterly isolated except for occasional spats with the US about the ownership of T.S. Eliot or Henry James. It so happened that I was teaching a relatively new course (for me) after the retirement of a colleague, a course on Victorian literature (excluding the novel), and so had occasion (and some freedom) to challenge myself. Here is the official catalogue description: ENL 3251 Victorian Literature: Selections from Tennyson, Browning, C. Bronte, Wilde, G.M. Hopkins and Arnold. Examines the beliefs and paradoxes of Victorian culture through the poetry, fiction, drama, visual arts and critical theory of representative figures. Investigates the social and cultural assumptions which underlie the artists' approaches to their themes as well as the themes themselves. Refer to department website. The last sentence is obviously doing a lot of work here, as is the one prior. I wanted the course to put the literature in a more global context, to foreground issues of race and empire, and to give space to other voices—something I am working on doing more of. (I would like to note here that the site One More Voice [onemorevoice.org] is profoundly helpful in getting a sense of the variety of voices out there, even though often these are not literary texts per...

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0300.050
Scholarly communication0.0170.018
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0150.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicAmerican Literature and Humor StudiesFrench-language works237,207