MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Home and <i>Unheimlich</i> : The Ghost Stories of Edith Wharton, Mary E. Wilkins Freeman, and Harriet Beecher Stowe

2025· article· en· W4410955910 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Brennan, Leah Blatt Glasser, Paul Ohler, Jana Tigchelaar

Bibliographic record

VenueEdith Wharton Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtWharton's jellyArt historyPhilosophyMedicineAnatomyUmbilical cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The roundtable discussion brings Wharton's ghost stories into conversation with the ghost stories of Harriet Beecher Stowe and Mary E. Wilkins Freeman. Focusing on both continuities and discontinuities among the selected ghost stories, the four participating scholars explore these American women writers' interest in the uncanny, particularly through its presence in home spaces. The uses to which these three writers have put the genre of the ghost story offer essential threads in understanding the genealogy of women’s experiences of power.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdith Wharton ReviewSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207