MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414426178 · doi:10.3390/h14100184

“Our Old Houses Are Full of Ghosts”: Gothic and Utopian Visions in Violet Tweedale’s Theosophical Writings

2025· article· en· W4414426178 on OpenAlexaff
Emily M. Cline

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheosophySpiritualismVisionNarrativePopularityModernityDoctrinePeriod (music)Long nineteenth century

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Violet Tweedale, granddaughter of the notable Scottish publisher Robert Chambers of Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal, became a prominent figure in the spiritualist and subsequent theosophy movements when she formed a close association with H. P. Blavatsky. Writing in the transitionary period between Victorian spiritualism and the Edwardian popularity of the esoteric and Eastern-inspired theosophy religion, Tweedale’s writings navigate between the true apparition narratives of Ghosts I Have Seen (1919) and the Arthur Conan Doyle-endorsed Phantoms of the Dawn (1928), with their emphasis on scientific inquiry championed by 19th-century psychical researchers, and novels such as Lady Sarah’s Son (1906) and The Beautiful Mrs. Davenant (1920) that emphasise the moral and philosophical promises of Blavatsky’s doctrine of spiritual progress. Tweedale’s turn-of-the-century supernatural writings illustrate the cultural and geographical shifts—from Tweedale’s native Scotland in the last decades of the Victorian era to the legacies of a Russian mystic’s New York-founded Theosophical Society—that influenced spiritualists’ increasingly global post-WWI relationships to both scientific futures and gothic pasts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.030
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.286
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumanitiesSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207