Her Story and His: A Dynamic Journey Through British Literary Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the lexico-grammatical patterns in British literature authored by men and women across four distinct historical periods: the Romantic era, the Post-Romantic and Victorian era, the early 20th century, and the 21st century. Biber’s Multidimensional (MD) analysis has been employed in the present study to identify the linguistic features that characterise four periods. The analysis of the 200 text documents reveals many significant gender differences related to culture and historical expectations. These features are most distinctively exposed in post-Romanticism and Victorian periods; women writers emphasize the narrative discourse. On the other hand, male writers use informative discourse and direct language. These differences have been reduced in the 21st century, pointing to a change of literary context in the form of a change of gender roles and comparability of narratives. By presenting data and arguments to this research question, this study provides important findings to the discourses on gender and literature. The analysed material reveals male and female writers’ contributions to the formation of literature and its evolution.MD provides a novel approach to considering gender differences in written communication with a focus on gender, written communication technologies, and history.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".