MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404885013 · doi:10.1515/zaa-2024-2015

The Unredeemable Sin: Inheritance, Gothicism, and the Possibility of Salvation in <i>The House of the Seven Gables</i>

2024· article· en· W4404885013 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Hassanpour Darbandi

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInheritance (genetic algorithm)GenealogyHistoryGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The House of the Seven Gables is a Gothic romance that deals with the conflict of ownership and inheritance in a uniquely American setting of New England. This paper argues that The House of the Seven Gables’ happy marriage of Phoebe Pyncheon and Holgrave does not redeem the Pyncheons’ sinful past and the apparent unraveling through marriage functions as an act to maintain the class distinction and to present ownership as an Eden-like and natural state of affairs. Discussed in a religious context, the Gothic modes in the novel, though secularized to an extent, completely conform to this prevalent interpretation. The subversion of the Puritan Calvinist theology and entailed predestination and its containment in liberal theology allows the present generation to redefine their condition by their own will. This new, semi-Jeffersonian world of the present leaves the conflict of ownership unresolved; questions about the lawful and just rights of property and inheritance are too readily overshadowed by the optimistic and lightsome ending of the novel.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.034
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueZeitschrift für Anglistik und AmerikanistikSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207