MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409273209 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2024.a956304

Breathing the "Air of Reality" in Henry James's In the Cage

2024· article· en· W4409273209 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Hannah

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCageBreathingJohn CageHistoryPsychoanalysisArtArt historyPsychologyMedicineAnatomyMathematicsPerformance artCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This essay makes a case for the significance of air as a material presence and shaping force for the imaginative adventures of the unnamed telegraphist at the centre of Henry James's In the Cage (1898). While previous critics have thoroughly examined the tale's interest in telegraphy, such scholarship has tended to miss the text's more broadly sensorial interest in the medium through which telegraphic communication travels. By drawing our attention to the air as a substantive medium in which the tale's characters breathe, move, observe, and communicate and as a visible, odorous record of various cultural economies, James's novella invites us to consider the shaping power of environments for the self and society. The novella's representation of smell, breath, and the human need for fresh air locates the telegraphist's imaginings as a complicated, biopolitical product of and escape from her material life. Air floats in the novella as a democratic medium traversing the bars of the cage, a universal element allowing for both respiration and contagion and rendering social divisions somewhat arbitrary. But the telegraphist's imaginative adventures also represent an uneasy critique of the ways in which culture and commerce can shape an individual's access to clean air, and, ultimately, a querying of realism's capacity to adequately capture the living, breathing body.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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 venueVictorian reviewSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207