A New Historicist Perspective on The Question of Faith in W. Collins’ The Woman in White and E. B. Browning’s Aurora Leigh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between fiction and ideology is a crucial issue to many critical schools and theoretical approaches. Such an issue has been flowing smoothly across historical periods and influencing various social, historical, and cultural aspects. The Victorian era is one of these stages, and Victorian literature has played a significant role in determining the nature of such a relationship in the subsequent generations in England. Departing from the New Historicist theoretical framework, this study examines the views of two Victorian masterpieces, namely, W. Collins’ The Woman in White and E. B. Browning’s Aurora Leigh as both texts and contexts. Both are influenced by and influential in their circumstances. The subjectivities of the two authors are changed, and they are, at the same time, agents of change within their sociohistorical spheres. These literary works cannot be considered as only products of their times; they are also major players in creating new pathways for the development of people and culture. The conventional views of religion are questioned, and several inherent rules are constantly replaced by others. Although W. Collins and E. B. Browning explicitly voice their full adherence to religious beliefs and principles, skepticism becomes strongly expressed in some of their literary works while institutional faiths and their status are called into question in certain ways.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".