MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400513827 · doi:10.5117/9789048560417_ch09

The Rhetoric and Aesthetic of Indirection: Women, Religion, and Power in the Works of Margaret Cavendish

2024· book-chapter· en· W4400513827 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Faith Nelson, Sharon Alker

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndirectionRhetoricAestheticsPower (physics)SociologyArtLiteraturePhilosophyTheologyComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the rhetoric and aesthetic of indirection, Margaret Cavendish establishes herself as both an early feminist and proficient theorist of religious and spiritual subject matter. Though Cavendish tried to convince readers that she did not write on religion – in an attempt to distance herself from ‘low-church’ Anglicans and nonconformists, especially “preaching sisters” – she uses the art of indirection, as later defined by Søren Kierkegaard, to do just that. In writing on religious matters in her poetry, prose, and plays, Cavendish grants herself, a female intellectual, a compelling voice on the subject and envisages agentic and authoritative women in reimagined religious institutions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam University Press eBooksSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207